The Who didn't rock the house, but they didn't strip to their underwear either

The biggest event of the year, the Saints vs. the Colts on Super Bowl XLIV, had no shortage of robust musical talent entertaining at halftime: legendary British rockers The Who, who (excuse the pun) might be criticized for being a musical infomercial for CBS. Airing on the Eye net, Roger Daltrey, Peter Townshend and company (including Ringo Starr's son Zak) took us through bits and pieces of the trio CSI: theme songs: the original CSI: ("Who Are You"); CSI: Miami ("Won't Get Fooled Again"); and CSI: NY ("Baba O'Riley"). If anything, this reminds us of the importance of opening a TV show with some kick-ass lyrics. The adrenalin gets pumping before any word of dialogue is spoken, thanks to any catchy TV-show theme.
  With only 12 or so minutes to perform, we also got parts of "Pinball Wizard" and the close of "Tommy" amid an orange-and-green-toned halftime show, which according to one Twitterer was "insanely cool." But not everyone was impressed. "The halftime show is supposed to leave you with wanting more," said one blogger. "The Who are always great to hear but tonight I hoped for more." "The Who halftime show was brought to you by Geritol and Depends," barked another. "They needed to leave early to get home to watch Matlock."
  Regardless of the reviews, CBS was not disappointed. Fortunately, there was no wardrobe malfunction, à la the Janet Jackson debacle of six years ago. Not a nipple in sight, nor any member of the Who sliding on his knees groin first into the camera. While the Who were not necessarily at the top of their game, anyone with some "snow on the roof" (myself included) watched and remembered the good old musical days of yesteryear. Too bad, though, that we are the not the audience that advertisers necessarily want to reach.

—Posted by Marc Berman

Ladies, your assignment for this weekend to understand the game of football

Ladies? Ladies! Stop making that Nine Layer Dip, and huddle up! It's Super Bowl Sunday, and you don't seem to understand what a point spread is, or what a Wildcat is, now do you? Do you?! Well, it's your lucky day, ladies! Betsy Berns is going to save your ass from embarrassment. See, she wrote this book for you. It's good, right? She really knows how to speak to the ladies about sports. In easy-to-understand language. I have to tell you, I personally can't believe I've gotten through 30 years or so of watching football without this book. My dad tried to explain the rules to me at one point, but he did it in that not-so-easy-to-understand man language. I'm not getting soft on you, I'm just trying to tell you that before I found this book, I just watched the Super Bowl for the commercials. And she totally looks like Carrie Bradshaw, right? Right?!

—Posted by Cindee Weiss

Free is free, however you want to look at it

I'm right now listening to Radiohead's In Rainbows and reminiscing about when I downloaded it for "free." (I actually decided to pay two or three pounds for it.) What a concept that was! And then, of course, came the backlash from the industry, musicians and critics. "It's setting a dangerous precedent," some said. "Free is the end of the record industry," said others. But all the while, I felt it was a good idea. I also remember, around the same time, Paste magazine copycatting by doing its own pay-what-you-want for a yearlong magazine subscription (I ended up paying $1, I think; I didn't renew after the year). Sure, the "free" idea isn't all that novel. Hulu and Pandora have been doing it for years now (with obvious setbacks—ad breaks—for users), as has just about every major industry for as long as I can remember. Think about the "Buy one, get one free" deals you hear about all the time from restaurants. Or even the free deli-tray giveaways at the supermarket. (I always loved those as a kid.) The reason for those is obvious: You take one bite of the free aged Boar's Head cheddar, and you just have to buy a half-pound. I say free is good. Keep it coming.

—Posted by Will Levith

'MacGyver' people, like most people, are not that excited about 'MacGruber'

For pure kitsch value, MacGyver is the gift that keeps on giving. The action adventure show, which aired on ABC from 1985 to 1992, birthed the handy catch phrase "I MacGyvered it," meaning, I used bubble gum and rubber bands to fix something. It launched a thousand fantasies for man-hungry Simpsons characters Patty and Selma (they love them some Richard Dean Anderson) and inspired a recurring Saturday Night Live skit, "MacGruber," that recently starred Charles Barkley and his "acting" skills. Now, though, a legal scuffle is starting between the original MacGyver rights holder—the creator of the TV series—and Relativity Media, which is preparing to open a big-screen MacGruber on April 23.

TV's award shows get their act together

At long last, producers of TV award shows have gotten our memo. It was pretty short and sweet. It said: "Listen, we don't have to watch." If there is such a thing as appointment television anymore, and that's debatable, prime-time slogs like the Golden Globes hadn't been on the calendar. Most of the major award shows have been declining in the ratings for years. If someone wore something ridiculous or said something scandalous, we could check it out later on YouTube. But finally, producers have stepped up their game and put on programs with some entertainment value. (Imagine that.) They've been rewarded for it, too, with the Grammy Awards drawing nearly 26 million viewers, a 35 percent increase from last year.

'Lost' season 6: answers answered (ep. 1)

Readers: You know I'm a huge Lost fanatic from my other MediaFreak posts about the ABC series. And given that this is the final season, I'm paying extra-close attention to what's going on, and my theories are even crazier (and foolish, according to my girlfriend) than ever before!
  So, this season, I'm going to help guide you through the long, arduous process of breaking down each season 6 episode after it has aired. Check out the first installment after the jump.

—Posted by Will Levith

Strap in, we're all about to get 'Lost' again

I'm not trying to be Captain Obvious here, but is anyone as excited as I am about tonight's premiere of the final season of Lost on ABC? I caught my girlfriend up over months of intensive Hulu and Netflix watching/training sessions to make sure that, on a night like this, we'd be able to experience Lost together—as a unit. I mean, this is the Big Night. I feel like I'm going into battle or something. I'm ready to kick some ass. My brain is ready to start thinking hard, my eyes set to pick out all the little nuances I would've missed the first time around in seasons past. All those countless hours I spent on Lostpedia, reading up on the Un-Locke and the Four-Toed Statue and Richard Alpert and theories about the Smoke Monster, are all coming to fruition. Tonight's the night. And I'm not touching my phone, social media or Mediaweek.com for those two full hours. Check out my Twitter feed at @MediaweekDotCom tomorrow for more Lost gushings!

—Posted by Will Levith

You tweet your way, and we'll tweet ours

I guess success breeds envy. What's with rival media outlets constantly feeling the need to take potshots at us? Following the likes of MediaPost, Jack Myers (whom I don't even consider a competitor) and others, the latest to take a swipe is PaidContent's Rafat Ali. Now, I have a lot of respect for PaidContent. Those guys do a pretty solid job covering a lot of space in a nimble, attitudinal fashion. But my respect drops when I see Rafat tweeting: "has @MediaweekDotCom laid off all journos & handed over its twitter feed to an intern? read the feed, judge for yourself..." Hey, Rafat, worry about your own operation. Clearly, we haven't laid off all our "journos," since your "journos" regularly riff (feel free to substitute a "p" for the two "f"s) off our coverage of the media … though the polite word for it is "aggregating." Second, and this is a more personal choice that I know is the exception to a lot of new journalism, I don't feel like I need to tweet everything I do professionally. Just because you do doesn't make you any better or smarter than me, or any of Mediaweek's "journos." Lastly, what's wrong with a little attitude? Mediaweek's Web editor is in charge of populating our Twitter feed, and has a little fun with it. I have no problem with his Twitter m.o., and it's helped boost our Web presence. Your site is full of attitude as well, as are all of our competitors' Web efforts. So, why don't you and your capable staff go back to doing your jobs and stop judging others? It would be grandly appreciated, Rafat. Cheers.

—Posted by Michael Bürgi

Hey, the Grammys weren't bad this year!

I'm the staff music nut. I know everything there is to know about music, and I have no problem letting everybody know it. What am I reading right now? A book about Radiohead's masterpiece, OK Computer. I bought some new vinyl over the weekend (the new Flaming Lips record Embryonic). I listen to the radio, CDs, vinyl daily. So, of course, I'm going to watch the Grammy Awards, right? Well, in recent years, I've been totally uninterested in the telecast. Every year, when I see the Black Eyed Peas getting tons of award noms, I start to wonder what's wrong with the voting committee. (This year, sadly, was no different—and they performed. Ugh.) I mean, the music is OK, but do they deserve Grammy nominations? But this year was different. You had actually cool bands like the Kings of Leon (above) and Zac Brown Band in the running for major awards (and winning!). You had Lady Gaga, who may or may not be a dude, leotarding it and singing face to face with the Modern Elton John (who is nowhere near as good as the Ghost of Elton John Past). You had a Michael Jackson 3-D tribute (I didn't have the specs, but the tune was still great). You had Stephen Colbert, who was hilarious and won an award, which I guarantee will be worked into The Colbert Report in coming episodes. This year had it all. Here's hoping CBS and the Grammys have finally figured out the right equation—at least for me. What did you think?

—Posted by Will Levith

What the iPad really needs is an iPad iPad

There's been quite a bit of speculation about whether Apple's newly launched iPad will be successful. There was quite a bit of the same surrounding the launch of the iPod, the iPhone, the iPod touch and just about every other "i" product Apple's ever launched. But everything they do seems to turn to gold in the end.  
  Still, I'm skeptical about the iPad for one reason: durability. It's super thin, it's super cool—yes, we know that. But what happens if the guy next to you on the train gets pissed off while playing a videogame on it and breaks it over his leg? The splintering shards could cut you up pretty bad. And what if you're staring over somebody's shoulder while they're trying to read an e-newspaper, and in a fit of rage, they whack you over the head with it? That could seriously hurt. And God forbid someone should rest it on his lap for too long. Remember that fellow with the exploding iPod? You get my drift.
  That is why I propose that Apple create the iPad iPad, which will be a pad you can drape over your lap so you don't singe your essentials. It will also lessen the blow, if someone were to thwack you with the system.  
  Not a bad idea, no?

—Posted by Will Levith