I’m Just Going on Hiatus. Really.

Writing about comings and goings within the television industry, you become accustomed to reading press releases and news stories couched in an artful form of media-speak, creating a world where no program is ever canceled and no executive gets fired.

Programs, rather, go “on hiatus,” an ill-defined place from which they seldom return. Studio and network officials abruptly decide to leave their cushy positions for “independent production deals,” which, in most instances, should come with an oversized beach umbrella and a year’s supply of sun block.

Reporters, of course, are trained to read between the lines but are often obliged to incorporate official responses that make what transpired sound so much more appetizing than putting a lot of people out of work right before the holidays, or telling a fellow who generated hits that made the stockholders very happy, in essence, “Sorry, but this year the new crop of shows didn’t measure up. Thanks for past service, but buh-bye.”

The new television season has provided an unusual number of examples highlighting this brand of creative writing. Thus far, 13 series have been canceled or temporarily visited the limbo of hiatus, and two network entertainment presidents shifted from their corporate roles to independent producing deals within the past month.

Small wonder, then, that yours truly--having eaten extra jalapen~o nachos before going to bed the other night--experienced a nightmare peppered with an assortment of TV industry-crafted disclaimers and other junk food that reporters consume during the course of a day.

In the dream, I found myself on the other end of one of those stories--the poor slob who suddenly found himself on the outside looking in, or the TV show yanked from the schedule, as people sprayed perfume and sprinkled flower petals to make the chain of events smell rosier.

The voice of KNBC-TV anchor Paul Moyer droned in the background as I dozed off (something terribly important seemed to be happening, based on his tone, but I managed to nod off anyway), so even though the nightmare ran in black-and-white newsprint--under the screaming headline “Times KOs TV Column”--I heard the words being read in Moyer’s over-heated style. Contributing to my sense of terror: As Moyer spoke, the KCBS-TV news team marched stiffly--for no particular reason--like a group of wooden soldiers behind him.

The story read as follows:

“In a stunning turn of events from the world of newspapers fraught with implications we haven’t yet figured out, Brian Lowry’s ‘On TV’ column, a new feature in the Los Angeles Times, will leave the paper’s Calendar section after just three months.

“A spokesman for The Times said that the column had been put ‘on hiatus’ and that the paper still has every confidence in it. The column, he said, would return at some later point--probably during the summer, hopefully when no one is paying any attention.

“Sources say the weekly Tuesday column sealed its own fate by having failed to capitalize on the strong Monday lead-in provided by The Times’ ‘Must-Read TV’ columnist, Howard Rosenberg.

“Insiders say the columnist made various choices that hurt ‘On TV’s’ chances of finding an audience, including the decision to go with a modified grimace in his picture as opposed to the more traditional smile, limiting its commercial viability.

“ ‘Before it started, I told people that picture would scare children,’ said one knowledgeable newspaper insider speaking on the condition of anonymity, although others in the industry can probably figure out who it is if they think about it for a little while.

“To fill the vacant slot, the work of more popular Times columnists will be reprinted--in some instances for the third and fourth time--until a new column can be launched. With the holidays around the corner, look for the new feature to make its debut some time early next year.

“ ‘We also have every confidence in the new column, whatever it may be,’ the Calendar spokesman said, sounding suspiciously like a network spokesman.

“Television executives--all speaking anonymously, and some possibly fictitious--generally praised the decision. One said it was remarkable that Lowry could ‘begin a new column in August and run out of original ideas before Thanksgiving.’

“Although at least three or four people had read the column, industry observers say its emphasis on analyzing television trends failed to connect with the demographic the newspaper wanted to reach--namely, people who have ever actually watched television.

“ ‘They need to bring in a columnist who can connect with younger audiences, including kids and teenagers,’ said media buyer John Pundit, who admitted he had never read the column but even so harbored no qualms about discussing its merits.

“Lowry was unavailable for comment, but issued the following statement through a spokeswoman: ‘It has been my great privilege to write ‘On TV,’ but after three months I felt it was time to seek new challenges in the world of independent freelance writing and devote more time to my family, charity work, reading Russian novels and catching up on low-priced, early-bird matinee showings of holiday movies.’ ”

I awoke from the nightmare with a start, relieved to realize that the column hadn’t been canceled, that Paul Moyer wasn’t reading my professional obituary and, best of all, that I didn’t have my own spokeswoman.

In fact, the “On TV” column is just taking a few weeks off while the columnist--still recovering from viewing this season’s three dozen new prime-time series--pauses for a much-needed break. It really was just hiatus after all, a breather.

At least, I think that’s right. It’s what the press release says.