For almost eleven years, we’ve been alerting our readers whenever anyone in the MSM relies too heavily on clichés or tired stereotypes when writing about comedians. Nathan Rabin, blogging for the Wall Street Journal may take the prize for hackneyed writing. (And, for extra credit, the WSJ accompanies the column with art by “Risko” that depicts Leno being pelted with… wait for it… tomatoes. Is this ironic? Or merely the sign of a sheltered existence? Or is Risko coming up on his 90th birthday and recalling an incident from a vaudeville show he saw once in Walla Walla?)

In the “essay,” Rabin tries to explain why comedians are turning on Jay Leno. He breaks out the trite sayings in paragraph twelve:

Comedy writers are, on the whole, a troubled lot. Funny people drink too much. They squander their money. They use drugs. They’re prone to depression, insomnia and mental illness, to tumultuous relationships and serial divorces. So when Letterman recently confessed that he’d slept with members of his staff and was the subject of a blackmail attempt it only made comedy writers love him more.

The lives of comedy greats are supposed to be messy: think Richard Pryor or Peter Sellers. We’re addicted to the archetype of the sad clown, laughing on the outside, weeping uncontrollably on the inside.

The reason all comics don’t like Jay Leno (if you believe that) is because we’re all stupid, bitter, immature, narcissistic drunks and addicts. Got it.

And if that’s not enough, we (supposedly) despise Jay Leno because he’s not a drunk or an addict or broke.

Rabin is a lazy writer who hasn’t the skill to disguise his contempt for comedians. Nothing new there. But he spends paragraphs one through eleven taking Leno to task for being unoriginal! “To comedy writers,” Rabin says, “Leno’s massive success represents the triumph of mediocrity.” Which comedy writers would they be? Rabin has no direct quotes. Rabin hasn’t even a quote that was offered anonymously.

Neither does he offer any quotes from the “comedy writers” who so effusively support O’Brien. Of course, we have no doubt they exist, but not offering a quote or two here or there– on either side of the controversy– is pure sloth. Especially since the opinions are offered as hard facts.

Also, we’re puzzled as to why all shows must be the same, why they must all offer the same kind of humor with the same sensibilities. Why cannot O’Brien and Leno exist in the same universe (if not necessarily on the same network)? And why, when one triumphs when the other doesn’t, is it and indication that the world is coming to an end, that some sort of horrible injustice has been perpetrated?

We’re baffled that Three and a Half Men is the number one comedy on network television. We’re mystified that folks can’t see the greatness of Better Off Ted. But we understand that it’s television. We’re mildly annoyed that some great shows have failed to “find an audience,” but we can’t really muster any genuine anger.

Same with the battle between the late night hosts– we can’t really scare up any genuine emotion on the matter. The television executives, however are another matter.

FOS Larry Getlen has a far more nuanced analysis of the entire situation. Getlen brings knowledge of the business andfamliarity with the history of the whole situation all the while managing to avoid the childish and boorish warmed over Freudian analysis of comedians’ psyches.

But it’s the other assumption that most aggravates me– that Leno should just walk away. Why? Because Conan is somehow entitled to the job? This is the television business, folks. How many new comedies and dramas last just a few episodes? When that happens, lots of people see a year or more of work evaporate into nothingness, and lots of people are thrown out of work. But no one rages for them.

Heck, in any business, sometimes people get laid off or fired and their friends have to replace them. That’s life. Do people quit their jobs in solidarity? C’mon.

Many, including Conan himself, cite how he was given weak lead-ins, and had every right to expect more time to develop his show the way Leno initially did. These people are right. Conan had every right to expect more, and in the end, he got shafted, no doubt. But these decisions were made by NBC, not Jay Leno.

Getlen places the blame squarely on NBC. Jeff Zucker, along with the others who engineered the trainwreck that is unfolding before us, played this so badly that he might end up with… nothing. Not Leno, not Conan, not even a network. And, if there were any justice (something that folks seem all concerned with these days), he would end up with no job. Television executives have nearly always managed to corral talent and manipulate time slots and deal with a surplus of talent– and they’ve always managed to do so without having the entire affair spill out into the street.

Perhaps, in the age of the internet, such delicate negotiations aren’t possible any more. Zucker assumed the reins of NBC in 2000. The internet was just getting warmed up. (Trust us on this– we had an online magazine at the time and the WWW was like a ghost town compared to what it is now!) Maybe Zucker is wholly incapable of functioning as the head of a television network in the internet age.

Let’s face it: He is a dismal failure at controlling the message. He has severely damaged the reputation and/or value of stars and franchises, while incurring the wrath of many of his of his employees and viewers. A lot of the battle for the hearts and minds of the audience has taken place right under his nose– on the soundstages that he purports to manage. But a good chunk of the conflict has taken place in the blogosphere. He’s had a ten-year run at NBC. Perhaps he should step down.

No matter what happens, Leno and O’Brien will probably be gainfully employed.