He is indeed a co-executive producer and a fine TV writer, but there are lots of folks up the food chain more informed and better situated to be talking about the future of the series.
They would include: show runner and executive producer Beau Willimon, director and executive producer David Fincher, star and executive producer Kevin Spacey and his producing partner Dana Brunetti. There are also executive producers John Melfi and Sarah Treem.
And how about Modi Wiczyk, CEO of Media Rights Capital, the production company that made "House of Cards" and then sold the U.S. and U.K. distribution rights to Netflix, a groundbreaking arrangement? Without Media rights Capital there would have never been a "House of Cards" for Netflix to stream.
I spoke to Wiczyk about the future of "House of Cards" on the eve of the Emmys last month.
"People here feel very lucky to have been part of 'House of Cards,'" he said in that interview. "We feel like everyone delivered all the way around. We hope we've done our end. And the journey will continue. I get to know what Francis [Underwood] is going to be doing in seasons 3, 4 and 5. I'm not going to tell you, but it's going to be pretty cool."
"Are you telling me there is going to be season 3, 4 and 5," I said seeking to pin him down and clarify his remarks.
"I would basically be shocked if there wasn't," he replied.
Anything is possible with a production as expensive and template-shattering as this. Sure, it could end after the initial guarantee of 26 episodes. That's a given -- not news. Any series could end after the initial order.
And after two seasons, I am sure Spacey and Wright are wondering about the prospect of three more years in harness. Thirteen episodes a year is a lot at this level -- especially for older actors.
Or, maybe talk of them wanting to do movies is a negotiating ploy. Maybe talk of the series ending is a negotiating ploy -- and the lazy press is willing to be used as a stooge because there are page views to be gained in playing the game.
But with Willimon tweeting that he hopes to keep the series going, and Wiczyk, the money guy, saying he expects three more years, don't you think Gold Derby, Huffington Post or someone in the sorry realm of online show-biz reporting could have reported that and tried to put Cleveland's remarks in some kind of context?
I guess not, that would be too much work -- and too much like real journalism.
I expect this of Hollywood reporting, but today Politico went with an item citing the Gold Derby report as well.
I'm too weary to take on failings of online Washington journalism today.
Like I said, anything's possible on a production like this. But let's try to put rumors and remarks in some context when we report them.
Or, would being responsible be bad for business?