Let's start with a couple of givens about Deadline Hollywood Daily's Nikki Finke. She's a talented reporter, and does indeed break a number of stories. But she can be biased in her reporting and a bit lazy in her research. She's a foce of nature in Hollywood, and she rightly gets a lot of attention from the studios and her fellow critics and journalists.

But she can also be infuriating to read, particularly when she post short blind items that seem designed to just be there in case she's actually correct with her prediction. She can then trumpet the news "as I first predicted." Even though her original item was so scarce of facts that it might as have been reported by a crew of trained chimps. The posts are cheap attempts to drive traffic, and you shouldn't read too much into the words. 

I don't generally enjoy slapping around other journalists, but I found myself really annoyed by Finke today as I worked my way through my backlog of Twitter posts. I found a score of tweets quoting Finke as claiming that NBC's "Chuck" had been renewed. Even better, the news would be announced tomorrow.

Now here is the entire post, including the headline. I would normally just include an excerpt, but it's tough to shorten this post and still end up with a complete sentence.

Yep, that's it. Two sentences, no indication of her sources, and she still manages to leave herself wiggle room in case she's wrong. Even worse, it's no secret that NBC is making a major renewals announcement on Monday, they've been pretty clear about that to critics.

But the craptastic renewals post is great for Finke, since all sorts of desperate "Chuck" fans are linking to it. It's great for Finke's traffic, but it's lousy journalism. Even given the lowered expectations of a short blog post.

Here's what you should know about NBC's plans. They're still working out the last details. The "Law And Order" pickup is almost a given, although some at NBC had apparently considered combining the two franchises into one time slot. Either a new season of "Law And Order" followed by a season of "SVU" in the same time period. Or, more likely, rotating them in the same way that USA rotates its dual cast episodes of "Law And Order: Criminal Intent."

The "Medium" renewal has long been rumored as well. The show has a weird spot in NBC's schedule, since NBC head Ben Silverman has reportedly told people he's not a fan of the show. But it does solid, if unspectacular numbers when it airs. So at the worst, it'll be back again as a midseason replacement.

I'm convinced that almost no one really knows for sure what is going to happen with "Chuck." Given what I've heard from some of the suits at NBC and Warner Brothers TV, everyone seems to agree the show is worth saving. What everyone had had trouble figuring out is how to make it work financially. And how to reintroduce the show in a way that might bring in some new viewers. "Chuck" was also weirdly tied to whether NBC picked up another series, and that decision moved the show from gone to back to maybe back as the network worked on its schedule.

E! Online had reported earlier in the week that the decision on "Chuck" might not be announced for a week or more. Finke claims it may happen tomorrow, and both scenerios are certainly possible. I've heard that the two latest hold-ups involve a deal between NBC and WBTV on costs, and some indecision at the network over where to slot the show. 

"Chuck" obviously doesn't work in its current slot, but the new Leno talk show really hampers NBC's ability to move it somewhere else. Silverman's push to renew both "Southland" and the struggling "Parks And Recreation" also locks in more of that precious primetime real estate.

One plan being pushed by mid-level execs at NBC was to hold "Chuck" until mid-season and then slot it on Sundays. But given the hit the show took in the ratings and attention after its long post-writer's strike hiatus, no one seems to have the stomach for another long delay.

After I read Finke's "story," I called an old acquaintance of mine who is one of the four of five people who would know for sure what was going on with "Chuck." I was told that a decision had been made, but it "wasn't 100%," and it wouldn't be until very late tonight.

And I'm guessing this is what Finke is hearing as well. It's more likely "Chuck" will be picked up than not, so trumpeting the renewal news is a pretty safe gamble. And if it doesn't work, you can always claim the network had a last minute change of heart.

This ambiguity is why I haven't written more about the renewal of "Chuck" story until now. I'm not a fan of vaguely worded predictions and quotes from unnamed sources. But the truth is, that's all any of us have until Monday morning.

Update: Came back to the office Sunday night with a couple of hundred messages about this piece. So a couple of clarifications.

I've been told by a few people that Finke's original post was only one sentence. The implication seems to be that she added the disclaimer when it started to become apparent that she might have the Monday renewal announcement wrong. 

I'm not sure if that's why she added the second sentence, but it is an interesting change.

I've also received a couple of comments along the lines of "You're just jealous of her scoop," or "Your piece doesn't have any identified sources, so you're no better than her."

If that's your reaction, then I wasn't as clear as I thought I was about Finke and her post. My point was that the post wasn't a scoop. At all. So there's nothing to be jealous about.

Secondly, I only discussed the programming decisions here because I wanted to make the point that all sorts of TV and media reporters have access to this speculations. I know a few network people, and honestly, I think I have a pretty good sense how NBC's schedule is going to shake out.

But the info comes from people who would be in a world of career pain if I identified them. They talk to me with the knowledge that their comments aren't for attribution. It's worth it to me because I get a clearer sense of the decision-making process at NBC. And the truth is that no one is going to talk on the record about schedule specifics the night before at least parts of it are unveiled.

One part Finke did get right in her post is that networks have been known to change their minds at the very last minute. So even if you have rock-solid info, it might change moments before the network execs hit the stage. A few years back, ABC was set to pick up a new comedy for the fall. The cast and crew had been told of the decision, and ABC flew the cast into NY to appear the upfront presentation. The morning of the upfronts the cast was called at their hotel rooms and told that ABC had changed its mind and the pilot wasn't being ordered to series after all.

Given decisions like that one, any attempt to make definitive predictions is likely to fail miserably.