Here was the common ground Maher found between what Sheen’s Detroit audience said, and what America as a whole should say: “This is bullshit, and I want my money back.” And after a mini-digression into the idiocy of paying to go see Sheen, Maher circled back around to the class topic:

“And if you think a guy living large, and rubbing your nose in it that you’re not, is funny, here’s one you’ll really love: you have to pay your taxes next week, and General Electric doesn’t.”

Taking the Sheen analogy a step further, Maher suggested, “I’ve already got your money, dude” as a slogan for the U.S. economy, demonstrating how it might apply to credit card companies and “too big to fail” bailout money recipients. And we won’t spoil Maher’s last line, but we’ll say that porn stars and Red Lobster are both involved somehow. Video of a pretty strong effort from Maher – again, making Charlie Sheen a worthy topic of discussion is no easy task at this point – below, via HBO.

The segment (embedded below) focuses on the recent controversy surrounding General Electric, who, despite having earned billions in revenue in the last year, reportedly paid zero dollars in federal taxes last year. This has raised legitimate questions about both the corporate tax code and the role that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is playing with the Obama Administration leading a new jobs council.

Host Jon Scott introduced the segment after first airing a report filed by ABC News’ Jake Tapper that was critical of GE’s taxes, then pronounced that NBC News (which is partly owned by GE) has not yet reported on the segment. He is quickly corrected by panelist Jim Pinkerton who claims that NBC actually had aired a report on the controversy, which is quickly seconded by fellow panelist Judith Miller then jumped on by Alan Colmes. The net result? A segment designed to criticize and ridicule NBC News’ coverage of this controversy quickly unravels into something entirely different, which results in the off-camera “cut!” and a reintroduction/re-taping of the entire segment. Rarely does the audience get insight into the actual production of TV sausage that the following clip reveals.

The rhetorical battle between Fox News and NBC’s former parent company GE is legendary, complete with an ambush style interview of Immelt during a GE shareholders meeting and consistent attacks by Bill O’Reilly. NBC News is now primarily owned by Comcast, however GE still owns a minority stake in the media outlet.

Update: Johnny Dollar points out to Mediaite that the following segment never aired on Fox News, rather was released via FoxNews.com. The post has been edited to accurately reflect those changes.

(H/T Johnny Dollar, via TV Newser)

For his part, Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer seemed to treat O’Reilly’s suggestion that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt refuse the stimulus package as not only moronic, but also inconsistent with the fiduciary responsibilities he’s pledged to uphold to the shareholders of General Electric. A transcript of the back and forth follows the video below.

O’Reilly: Impact Segment tonight, a situation that made me pause. In 2009 the General Electric corporation generated 156 billion with a b dollars in revenue. Obviously an enormous number. GE also received 25 million bucks in government stimulus money, our tax dollars. However, GE let 18,000 workers go last year after getting the money. How does that add up? We asked Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer to assess the situation. He joins us now from Washington. We have coming up behind you Senator Coburn about a billion dollars possibly wasted in Haiti. He is coming after you. What I can’t understand and you are much smarter than I am as everyone knows. Why would we give ge $25 million in the first place when they’re generating an enormous amount of money. They don’t need stimulus package.

Krautammer: Look, that 25 million was not an act of charity. The fact that ge is one of the largest corporations on earth in the middle of one of the worst recessions in seven years would shed jobs and try to get lean is not news. That’s what every business, large, small, and medium has been doing. And the fact that GE got $25 million is meaningless. do you know how — you are a Harvard guy. You can do the math. That is 1/3 of one one hundred of 1% of the Stimulus.

O’Reilly: Here is what I would have done if I were Jeffrey immelt the ceo of GE I wouldn’t have taken a nickel of taxpayer money if I knew I was going to lay off people. How does thatook? Even though it’s a minuscule amount compared to the trillions of dollars the government dolled out in the face of the recession, it’s still 25 million. Then they they lay off 18,000 people. The folks are going, what is this?

Krautammer: I’ll tell you what it is. If you are the head of a corporation, you have fiduciary obligation to try to maximize your profits and to make the corporation a going affair. If you have to shed jobs in a recession like everybody has to, you go ahead and do you it.

O’Reilly: don’t take the government’s money.

Krautammer: The government comes along and offers you a check thank you I will take it.

O’Reilly: a lot of companies wouldn’t do that.

Krautammer: Then I’m not sure I would want to hold their stock.

O’Reilly: what about the moral responsibility that GE has to the taxpayer?

Krautammer: Look, if the government believes that it has to spend a trillion dollars and you and I oppose the stimulus, I think it was almost complete waste of money, it will not leave a trace, unlike what happened in the great depression when we have the Hoover dam and tva and the interstate highway system and the space program in the 50s. This is not going to leave a trace. I was against it I think it’s the wrong way to stimulate an economy. Nonetheless, the democrats won the election. And they had control of the house and senate and they decided to spend the money. If it’s going to be spent and you are the head of the corporation and the government offers you in one of your divisions, let’s say a green project, I think it’s all nonsense, but if the government offers you that you take it. Why not? That’s what business is about.

O’Reilly: then you lay off 18,000.

Krautammer: That’s not connected to the money. It’s —

O’Reilly: The appearance of greedy big corporation letting the little guy go out the door when they are getting taxpayer money.

Krautammer: Look, look, look. Hold on one second. You have know the fallacy there go hawk you are the Harvard man, meaning if x happens before y it doesn’t mean x caused y. there is no connection between stimulus money thrown thrown out of an airplane sprinkled all over America where a minuscule amount lands on GE shedding jobs which is what every company has to do in a recession.

O’Reilly: GE is widely perceived to be maybe erroneously maybe to be in the pocket of president Obama. The NBC news arm obviously promoted his election and some might say cynical people well, look, it’s payback time. They are getting a bunch of green contracts. They are getting the 25 million, even though it’s not much, it’s still 25 million. It’s really pay back time. Do you see it that way?

Krautammer: If you are going to sell your soul you don’t sell it for a happy meal without the fries. Ah, it’s a trivial amount of money.

O’Reilly: contracts aren’t.

Krautammer: So ideologically inclined in that case and that’s why they built NBC, MSNBC, the web site, all of this as a way to amplify a left-wing pro-Obama message, then why did he sell it? If he already it had he sold it to Comcast.

O’Reilly: It failed. Not doing that well.

Krautammer: Is comcast which has now purchased it also left wing and ideologically inclined?

O’Reilly: I don’t think so.

Krautammer: It’s a business proposition.

O’Reilly: okay. all right, Charles. it will be interesting to see the mail on this.

Speaking with an unnamed executive while researching the motivations behind News Corps’ donation, The New York Times’ Jim Rutenberg mined a gemstone of a quote that expresses something quite far from the fear or concern a news organization in any other country would feel when the current White House administration is so preoccupied with what’s going in within:

An executive at Fox News who agreed to be interviewed on the condition of anonymity expressed “astonishment” over Mr. Obama’s focus on the network. “We are so in his head,” he said. “Can you believe with all the other things going on in this world he’s preoccupied with Fox News?”

This in light of a recent lawsuit entertained in court nearly two years after being dropped on the part of a Fox News employee citing discriminatory employment practices, and further reports that it’s not just News Corp that functions as a major political donor. It appears not only that Fox News is not worried that their business will be hindered by their political activism, but that their political activism as noticed by the White House is at the very least shocking and, at most, a bit of a badge of honor.

NBC owner General Electric, for example, has donated to the Democratic Governors Association, while Comcast, which is currently in the process of buying NBC, has given to both. This is all legal on both sides, despite the White House’s interest in News Corp’s activities in particular, as neither Governors Association has a right to channel funds into specific campaigns, but rather use them for general costs of functioning.

The first insult comes early when Chozick’s article reveals that execs call the technique “behavior placement” which is so sinister sounding that George Orwell would have considered it too heavy-handed for 1984. The article goes on to show the reader just how much bottom-line thought goes into simple acts like Tina Fey throwing out a water bottle in an episode of 30 Rock.

From the article:

“While the network says it tries to incorporate green programming throughout the year, the special emphasis twice a year creates an “event” that provides opportunities to advertisers, an NBC spokeswoman says. For instance, a Wal-Mart ad focusing on locally grown produce ran this past November after an episode of the medical drama “Trauma” in which emergency medic Rabbit rescues a window washer dangling precariously from a building; medics are alerted to the situation by a man sitting in his hybrid vehicle.”

Ugh. And the sitcoms and dramas aren’t the only one’s who are affected. During a 2008 “Green Week,” MSNBC had correspondent Kevin Corke cover the presidential primary in Pennsylvania by driving around in something called the “Green Machine”. As a helpful side note, the news program wasn’t remiss in reminding viewers that the vehicle was a Ford Escape hybrid!

NBCU has been making huge strides in the areas of corporate integration. The product placement has been around for years (in all fairness, almost since the beginnings of television), but this “behavior placement” just seems so insulting to viewers. At the very least, the execs who gave the interview to the WSJ could pretend that it’s all actually about saving the environment. And, hey, if you like “Green Week”, get ready for “Health Week”! The WSJ article states that that new marketing opportunity will come be coming in June and it’s something NBCU has been working on for a while. Makes sense though. If those lovely car companies can show just how much they care about the earth, it’s only fair that NBC allows companies like McDonalds to show how much they care about your health!

Look, we all know that television is a business. Everything is a business. Hell, every action on this planet can pretty much be boiled down to people trying to stay alive, reproduce, or make money. Still though, there’s just something so creepy about reading all these quotes stacked together.

As soul crushing as it may be though, you really should read the article. It’s a truly interesting peek into what it takes to make “art” in this day and age and we all need a bracing splash of reality every once and again. And after you’re done, you can always spend the rest of the day watching Frank Capra movies until you cry yourself to sleep…

Who: Alec Baldwin interviewed by Janet Maslin
What: TimesTalks’ “Live with Alec Baldwin”
Where: The Times Center
When: December 3, 2009
Thumbs: Up

After hearing Alec Baldwin talk about the state of Hollywood, it’s easy to understand why he wants out. He says that movies are largely driven by business and marketing today, and the days of great actors are well behind us. Every actor has to make the choice between acting in great, perhaps overlooked films, and blockbuster pictures that earn you lots of money. Fifteen years ago, Baldwin says he made the mistake of going after the money.

Baldwin was very forthcoming about his decisions and his career, just not when interviewer Janet Maslin requested it. In fact, the whole interview seemed like a long charade for Baldwin who alternated between regaling the audience with stories, cracking jokes, making analogies, and doing impressions. Through the chaos of Baldwin’s act and contradictions of his words — and his many asides, to the audience’s delight — Maslin somehow managed to keep the actor relatively on track.

What drew Baldwin back to the topic at hand was the opportunity to express his admiration for those who came before him on the big and little screens. For the upcoming It’s Complicated, a romantic comedy whose screened clips were raunchier than you’d expect from the aging actors, it was the chance to work with Meryl Streep. That seems to be consistent with Baldwin’s proclaimed agenda for his Academy Awards’ hosting duties in the spring when he’ll aim to combine the reverence of the biggest night in cinema with his antics on stage with longtime friend, Steve Martin.

Jack Donaghy, Baldwin’s character on “30 Rock,” appears to have grown to be more like Baldwin himself, though he claims he only contributes ideas, not lines. After word came out that Comcast was taking over a controlling stake at NBC Universal, Baldwin suggested Donaghy barricade himself in his office. He says that these kinds of meta-references have pleased General Electric’s executives, but not so much NBC’s people.

Maslin pointed out that earlier in his career, because he was so good looking, not many people credit Baldwin for being funny, despite his work on “Saturday Night Live.” Now, and maybe because of his declining looks, Baldwin wryly pointed out, everyone seems to give him credit – be it for his comedic ability, his environmental efforts, or a possible future run for political office.

Everyone, and we suspect Baldwin himself is with that group, is trying to figure out the same thing: What’s next for Alec Baldwin?

What They Said
“Movie audiences date you and TV audiences marry you.”
- Alec Baldwin is going to stop having affairs

“Public officials deserve a lot more scrutiny than public figures.”
- Alec Baldwin believes that the public has no right to know what he does in his personal life

“Comcast is in Philadelphia, G.E. is in Fairfield, and that’s all I know.”
– Alec Baldwin knows less than Jack Donaghy about the inner workings of NBC Universal

“It’s like ‘Rocky Horror Picture Show’ without the wit or charm.”
- Alec Baldwin insults “The Room,” but in a way that “The Room” fans would probably celebrate

What We Thought

• We found Baldwin’s comments about the decline of modern movies fascinating. He claims that John Travolta was the last true movie star, someone whose persona could draw customers to his movies and then deliver on that stardom. Since then, Baldwin says actors are used more to get people into the seats, but it’s the technicians who have to do the real work on the product.
• After drilling Baldwin on some more serious points, Maslin tried to lighten the mood by asking Baldwin a series of true-or-false questions based on what she read about him online. This Internet fact-check revealed that Baldwin once had a job as a waiter at Studio 54. It also left him wondering whether the audience came to hear him talk about that.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Reminiscers
It was nice of so many of Baldwin’s old neighborhood friends (and dentist) to come out and support the Westchester County native. But did they all have to make their ways to the microphone? The first time it was endearing, but by the third and fourth example we were wishing for strangers to bypass the memory keepers in the line. With limited time and access to Baldwin, we wanted to hear more questions and answers. Instead, we heard a series of anecdotes that didn’t lead to anything but self-indulgence. Let’s keep the focus on the celebrity panelist, not those who shared a backyard with him.

The sale of NBC Universal from General Electric Co to Comcast Corp, which Comcast hoped to complete almost a month ago, looks like it’s actually happening this time. According to the New York Times‘ Michael J. de la Merced, Bill Carter, and Andrew Ross Sorkin, GE reached a tentative agreement to buy Vivendi SA’s 20 percent stake in NBC, ending a stalemate that held up the GE-Comcast deal:

General Electric has reached a tentative agreement to buy Vivendi’s 20 percent stake in NBC Universal for about $5.8 billion, helping clear the path to a sale of the television and movie company to Comcast, people briefed on the matter told DealBook.

But much remains to be negotiated, these people warned. The Vivendi agreement values NBC Universal at $29 billion, less than the $30 billion or so that G.E. and Comcast had agreed to last month.

Harmonizing the two values, as in so much of the talks over NBC Universal, may take days to do. But people briefed on the matter said the companies are aiming to announce a completed deal by Thursday.

Many free press advocates are balking at the potential deal, saying it would place too much power in the hands of Comcast, already the nation’s largest cable and home Internet provider. Bloomberg reports the Obama administration will likely echo such concerns, and subject the merger to intense investigation.

The soon-to-end relationship between NBC and GE could also be awkward for Tina Fey, who lampoons GE’s leadership in her comedy show (and awards show darling) 30 Rock, through Alec Baldwin’s pompous executive character, Jack Donaghy. The GE-NBC dynamic also proved fruitful for David Letterman when GE first acquired the network in 1986. Now, Fey might have to address the merger on-air to, however slightly, tether her show to reality. And people are curious to see how (or whether) she’ll do it: for all the talk of consolidation of media power the current deal could bring, it seems that on the minds of some, 30 Rock‘s handling of the situation is the most pressing issue. Don’t let anyone tell you comedy doesn’t matter.

The two sides have been in talks to reach a deal that would give Comcast a 51 percent stake in the NBC Universal venture, which would also house the cable networks now belonging to Comcast. They recently agreed to value NBC Universal at about $30 billion, sources previously told Reuters.

Under the terms being discussed, Zucker will lead the new entity, with no clauses for him to leave after a specific period, the sources said on Tuesday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the details have not been made public.

As part of the proposal, NBC Universal would become a joint venture, 51 percent owned by Comcast and 49 percent by GE. Comcast would contribute around $4 billion to $6 billion in cash, as well as its collection of cable networks to pay for its stake.

There has been a lot of speculation about who will head the new company, especially since Peter Chernin — the former president of News Corp (NWSA.O) — has been advising Comcast.

The sources said Zucker would be chief executive, but no decisions had been made on what role Chernin might play, if any.

A report by Brian Stelter in the New York Times, and another by Joe Flint in the Los Angeles Times, reveals a deal that began at the top of each organization, and has led both networks to tamper down the criticism. It sounds like a historic truce between two longtime enemies – and a truce that both organizations clearly did not want public. Now it opens the door to more questions than before.

The only person quoted on the record in the Times story was a G.E. spokesperson who gave a general comment. The reason for this is clear – revealing the deal helps no one, either at Fox or at NBCU.

Here’s how Stelter described the deal, which he writes started between Jeffrey Immelt of G.E. and Rupert Murdoch of News Corp.

Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.

In early June, the combat stopped, and MSNBC and Fox, for the most part, found other targets for their verbal missiles (Hello, CNN).

“It was time to grow up,” a senior employee of one of the companies said.

“It was time to grow up”? For whom? Cable news viewers on both sides don’t want to be talked down to like they’re children, even if their angry host of choice sometimes acts like one.

There’s a chance this will all go away, but the more likely result of this deal going public is it will ruffle the feathers of the hardcore fans of both networks, and specifically both 8pmET hosts Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann.

An NBCU insider tells Mediaite: “From a GE corporate perspective, this bickering needed to end. But this article now puts Olbermann and O’Reilly in a tough spot. They’re both going to want to prove to their viewers that they didn’t cave because of some back room corporate deal. In particular, a deal to stop attacking an entity (MS or FOX) many of their viewers despise.”

Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald raises another issue:

So now GE is using its control of NBC and MSNBC to ensure that there is no more reporting by Fox of its business activities in Iran or other embarrassing corporate activities, while News Corp. is ensuring that the lies spewed regularly by its top-rated commodity on Fox News are no longer reported by MSNBC. You don’t have to agree with the reader’s view of the value of this reporting to be highly disturbed that it is being censored.

Plus, it makes people question a host’s motives. On June 1 Olbermann called an end to his O’Reilly persona. “So as of this show’s end, I will retire the name, the photograph, and the caricature,” he said. Now the question becomes – was it all part of the directive?

But let’s step back for a minute, and look at the reality of the situation. Maybe the idea this feud is really over is a bit of an exaggeration. For one thing, if June 1 signaled the beginning of the end, as Stelter wrote, then how come Olbermann continued attacks on Fox News, Murdoch and, yes, even O’Reilly (in relation to his Joan Walsh Tiller interview) after the date? (TVNewser has a source with another critique of the Times story.) O’Reilly has not held back either – he’s talked about G.E., as has Glenn Beck.

And speaking of Beck – MSNBC couldn’t stop talking about him for several days this week.

The question now becomes what happens on Monday (and in the near future). Reports of an attempted deal between the two entities is not entirely new – Howard Kurtz wrote about talks back in May 2008. But if this one is really happening, we’ll see it in the coverage. Olbermann is not one to shy away, or listen to management. And having the G.E. spokesperson in the Times story discuss a “certain level of civility” that “needed to be introduced into the public discussion” had to have irked the MSNBC host – maybe to the point of addressing the issue head-on (to the likely headaches of execs at 30 Rock). O’Reilly may not touch the topic, but if he completely drops the G.E.-Iran storyline, some may start to question the News Corp. influence on his top-rated program.

The news of a deal is more important than the deal itself – and it’s going to be a problem for all parties involved.

• Inside Cable News looks at the timeline of events.

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter