Check out this CNN article about Guy Philippe, who you might know as the leader of the rebellion in Haiti to take out current President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

It seems that Philippe uses his satellite-driven Internet connection from the Hotel Mont Joli in Cap-Haitien, Haiti to check out what the current plans are from countries like the U.S. and to gauge reactions through news sources.

Who knew. I think I'm glad Napoleon, Hannibal, and Alexander the Great didn't have the Internet is some tent somewhere are they created empires, howabout you?

Sirius Satellite Radio announced yesterday that they would be providing traffic and weather information in the Top 20 U.S. markets by the end of this March. Their offering, entitled "SIRIUS FIRST TRAFFIC", will be supported by Westwood One, who currently provides most of the traffic information over the radio.

Earlier this year, Sirius' main competitor, XM Radio, announced it would have traffic and weather reports as well. XM has plans for 21 U.S. markets to receive the service, including fifteen starting in March, and six later on in 2004, with the timeline for those cities not yet finalized.

Much like the cable television stations' advertising campaigns for a few years about satellite providers not being able to provide local television stations for news and weather, the radio industry had been poo-pooing the satellite providers on the same issues. Now this isn't going to be the case anymore. Been looking for an excuse to purchase the car hookup for your home system? This might be it.

The New York Post's Michael Starr reports that Dennis Miller's CNBC talk show is taking two weeks off to be "redone" by producer Steve Friedman.

According to the article, Miller's show has averaged about 303,000 viewers in its timeslot at 9pm, a significant increase from the fourth quarter of 2003. I haven't seen ratings for the 1st quarter of 2003 to do a true year-over-year calculation.

After reading Lionel Beehner's article entitled "9,000 Google hits can't be wrong - or can they?" in the Christian Science Monitor, I can't help but agree on most of the issues involved. I've always thought that Google was the tool of the layman (at least in media terms) to finding out about anything and everything. We know it's not the perfect tool, but it generally works out. Don't have Lexis-Nexis at your disposal? Google it. No interns to make some phone calls on your behalf? Google again. You get the picture.

According to Beehner, journalists are following the same trend, using Google "statistics" to create value for the stories they are reporting. Heck, if I were an editor and someone came in to me saying "Look, this article about stale bread is gonna be huge! There are 26,200 references on Google to the topic, as opposed to only 615 for stale crackers!", and I didn't know how Google worked, I would probably at least think about it, right? Wrong.

If every single mention of something is caught on Google, and it's someone's name, like Britney Spears, or Pamela Anderson, we should be wary. Not only to people use things like this unscrupulously to lure readers to their sites, but some totally unrelated sites put terms in their "meta tags", or part of the HTML coding that makes up their web pages. You can skew things all you want - create 500 pages that link to a particular site, and you instantly create value to the algorithms that make up Google's brain - among other search sites. I love Google as much as the next person - I use it 99% of the time I'm looking for things on the Internet. But it's not a perfect science, and unfortunately, it seems to be something that so many people have bought into that they consider it their perfect research buddy.

Atrios pointed out yesterday that Michael Savage is still on the Clear Channel airwaves, even through the recent dropping of Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard Stern made it seem like CC was making attempt to clear its stations of anything that is or has been considered indecent or offensive. I'd have to say that Savage would qualify by those "standards", so why the seemingly double standard?

Perhaps you've read about the ongoing issues with companies like Diebold and their advances towards electronic election systems. A lot of people were looking for the fix after the debacle in 2000's Presidential election results from Florida - electronic or otherwise. It was the perfect opportunity for the electronic systems-makers to step in and sell their product.

Why aren't we hearing more about this? According to a quote in yesterday's mediachannel.org NewsAlert by Mark Lewellen-Biddle and Danielle Taylor, "50 million Americans will use electronic ballots when they vote for a president on November 2" (via Election Data Systems) and (with no true count available) many voters in the ten states participating in March 2nd's "Super Tuesday" primary day could be using electronic voting systems. I, for one, concur with Lewellen-Biddle and Taylor on this - why aren't we hearing more on the subject in the "mainstream" channels? I'd say it's a pretty big deal, and gets huge web coverage from the "early adopter" folks - but it affects more than just the techies in the population, doesn't it? Attention seems to warrant.

Diebold's site has some good information for those interested in the topic and technology. For more information on the potential dangers of electronic voting systems, check out blackboxvoting.com.

[update] The New York Times picked up this story today, with an article that includes a graphic showing counties that are using electronic voting technology.

[3/1/04] Leonard Witt at Public Journalism Network voices some concerns on the topic, with the title saying it all: "New York Times on E-Voting, I Expected More", when referring to the Times article I referred to in my last update up above.

Check out the ucomics strip here at Rhetorica.

Gotta love humorists.

Following the leads of Viacom and Clear Channel, Emmis Communications announced that they will be going "zero-tolerant" in the near future, mostly to stay away from the standards that the FCC is currently laying down.

I used to do some work with Emmis representatives on the print media side, so I'm somewhat familiar with this company. They do own 27 stations nationwide, and a stack of print publications. My question is the same as Jay Smooth's - what is going to happen at Hot 97? If you've ever listened to that station, they do get away with a lot, especially after 10pm. (Not that other stations don't, but they are a good example) You hear freestyling going on where they get very close, or just don't, bleep stuff out. Uncut records go blazing by at 2am. Is that gone? Probably. We'll see in the coming days how this continues to unfold.

Thanks to Michele over at A Small Victory, we find out that at least one person at the FCC thinks some standards should apply to cable and satellite radio and television providers, just as they do to the "over the air" stations.

I'm trying to hold off on really just releasing my overall feelings on this subject because I, unfortunately, don't have a day editor. But I truly think this is just going overboard. Someone on Don Imus' radio show this week (and I think Don even repeated it) mentioned that it felt like we were going back to the 50's, and I'd have to agree - even though I'm 20 years removed from that era. I don't need a watchdog patrolling everything I pay to see/hear. I like my cable television the way it is. There are "limits" on what comes on at certain hours, mostly because the stations are trying to have some decency by not showing a lot of explicit sexual situations at hours before 10pm, and there are rating systems that cover every single program.

Europe is a lot less hardheaded about this, and they aren't exactly going down the toilet, are they? Why can't we just go the way we're going, have some decency on television without thinking anytime that extra second button is opened on the newscaster's blouse that she's obviously going to have it torn off by a gaffer or something. Let's be sensitive to the public's concerns without diving headfirst off the high dive into the empty pool.

Today's interview takes a different direction from the last few, as I've been able to "unmask" someone who does their daily work with a pseudonym. Her name is Marisa Hoheb, but some of you might know her by Rachel, from the Rachel Speaks column at Media Life Magazine.

After my initial contact with "Rachel", I learned something exciting - she's a 22 year-old senior at the University of Virginia, and is just a few months from graduation. I immediately got all "cloak and dagger" (but without Dabney Coleman) about revealing her information, but was assured I need not worry about it, which made this even more intriguing for me. So here goes!

TMD: Tell me a bit about your background, career, and your interested in the media world?

RH: My name is Marisa Hoheb, I'm 22 years old, and I'm in my last semester at the University of Virginia. I've been writing and editing for as long as I can remember...probably since elementary school! So after graduation I hope to have a job in magazine journalism (either print or online) or book publishing. I guess you can call me a media junkie, because although I have no intentions of pursuing broadcast journalism, I currently do news and public service announcements for a local radio station as well, and it's a lot of fun!

TMD: Do you have any hobbies or things outside school or work that you enjoy?

MH: Well, unfortunately I don't have a whole lot of free time right now since for some strange reason I decided to make my last semester my BUSIEST one instead of my slack-off one! But I very much enjoy reading, eating, and wasting a whole lot of time online. Oh, yes, and I love to travel. Luckily my mother shares this love with me, and she's crazy enough to call me up every once in awhile and say, "Hey, do you want to go to [fill in the name of a city/country here] this weekend??" I've scored several free trips, including two to London and one to San Francisco, that way!

TMD: If you had to choose what role you might have at a media outlet, what would be the order you'd go in: editor, writer (behind the scenes), byline journalist, on-air talent (radio or television) - or something else? Why would you choose as such?

MH: Honestly, I love writing and editing so much that I could easily envision myself in any of the first three positions. Hopefully I will find a job that lets me fill all three roles. I am a pretty shy person, but if I were more naturally outgoing and could think on my feet a little better I would also love to pursue radio as a career rather than simply a hobby.

TMD: Tell me how you got involved with Media Life Magazine?

MH: Media Studies, which is one of my majors, [ed: note to self...."one" of her majors!!] used to send out an e-mail newsletter every week with media-related job opportunities, and at some point in October Media Life advertised for a copywriter/proofreader. On a whim I applied for the job since I figured I could use the extra cash, and I got it! I worked (and continue to work) as a copywriter/proofreader three mornings a week, and at the beginning of this semester my editor asked if I would like to write a career advice column as well. And thus, the birth of Rachel!

TMD: In performing your duties in the "Rachel Speaks" column, what kind of mail do you get the most? Are they from people with serious job requests or general questions about the media industry for people who aren't necessarily employed in it - or something else?

MH: I get a pretty big mix. Many of the people who write to me have had at least a few years of experience in the media industry and have pretty specific questions, how they can get a raise, what and where the hottest media jobs are right now, how to do with office politics, things like that. But I also hear from people who are just entering the workforce or who are approaching media from an entirely different career path, and many of them have more general questions regarding how they can break into the world of media.

TMD: Have you ever answered someone's request either in a column or privately and receive really great feedback from it?

MH: The first series of columns I did, about how and when to ask for a raise and what to do if your boss says no, elicited a lot of positive feedback...which was really exciting since I essentially had no idea what I was doing at that point! I think people reacted so well to those columns because raises and promotions are important to EVERYONE, regardless of their specific job or level of experience.

TMD: Many people think that "advice" type columns are a dime a dozen - not to defame what you do in any way - but why do you think what you do is important, and what do you think that you, "Rachel", bring to the table?

MH: Okay, I'm going to start off by being a little selfish here. Writing this career advice column has benefited me greatly because I myself am totally new to this whole "full-time job" thing! :-) I have learned so much about the working world over the past couple of months, and I feel like I am expanding not only my knowledge base but my capability to face challenges because if writing a column about media careers before ever having had a full-time job in media isn't a challenge, I don't know what is! I can only hope that I have succeeded in making "Rachel Speaks" easy and fun to read and the people who read the column, particularly those just starting out in their careers, are benefiting from the advice I provide. Several media veterans have asked me why Media Life elected to have me write the column rather than someone with a wealth of experience, and the answer is that they thought I would be able to provide a fresh, youthful voice. So I would like to think that although I can't bring experience to the table, I can challenge media newbies and pros alike to think about various aspects of their careers in a new light.

TMD: Five year plan - what's on yours?

MH: Graduate from UVA, find a job in print journalism or book publishing in the New York metro area, move into my own apartment (most likely in Queens since it's not exactly realistic to think I can afford New York City rent on an entry-level media salary!), travel as much as I can, settle down with my boyfriend of six years, and hopefully succeed and advance in whatever career path I end up following! :-)

TMD: Is there a person who caused you to be interested in the media as a whole? If so, tell me how they influenced your education and direction?

MH: This is a hard question to answer because I feel like I was born to write and edit. For that I guess I can thank my parents, not only for the literary genes but for the encouragement and support they have always provided me.

There are also a ton of employers, teachers, and professors who have convinced me over the years that this is really what I want to do.

TMD: Obviously writing a column for a publication can take some time out of your day - how much do you find you read in other publications, online or otherwise - anything in particular you regularly follow?

MH: When I am home from school I read newspapers and magazines, everything from Newsday, the New York Times, and Time to Jane and Ms., on pretty much a daily basis. When I'm at school I kind of live in a bubble and don?t have much access to such publications, so I pretty much follow the news by reading the Cavalier Daily (UVA?s newspaper) and news web sites such as CNN.com. Doing live morning news for the radio station pretty much forces me to keep up-to-date on the major stories, so at least I'm not TOTALLY out of touch with the world right now! ;-)

TMD: What impact do you see blogging having on the journalism and mass media fields in the near and/or long term? Have you ever blogged?

MH: I think blogging has increased the public's desire to infiltrate the private spheres of high-profile individuals (politicians, celebrities, or otherwise). How could it be otherwise? Blogging has become so common that our society is pretty much accustomed to being able to sign online and read about the day-to-day minutiae of friends, family, and strangers whenever the desire trikes...so it follows that we would demand the same of those in the news.

Accordingly, I think journalism will increasingly cater to this appetite for "fluff" (where does Britney Spears get her hair extensions put in? What does Justin Timberlake eat for breakfast? What's J.Lo.'s sex life like?) I myself have blogged, but not extensively. My friend set up an account for me on livejournal, but I never really got into posting details about my life for all to see. I'd say I update the account once every six months or so!

TMD: One last question - if you had two or three sentences of advice for someone looking to get involved in the media world, what would they be?

MH: Wow, I wish I had something awe-inspiringly profound to say here, but I'm just starting out! Anyone have any advice for me on how to secure a magazine or book job? I've applied for at least 25 already, but so far my phone's not ringing! ;-)

But seriously, I think the most major lesson I've learned from "Rachel" so far is that you have to be creative, flexible, and patient if you're hoping to break into media. There are definitely jobs out there, but this is an extremely difficult industry to enter. Don't have your heart set on one specific job and location. Keep an open mind, because you never know what might pop up!

Thanks so much for interviewing me! Let me know if you have any other questions.

Hope you all enjoyed that interview - I thought it was very insightful, and perhaps we all have something to learn after realizing that not only did a publication offer Marisa an advice column about working in an industry before she graduated from school, but that people really utilized her column as a resource. We should all keep Marisa on our radar screens, as I'm sure she'll be at a publication near you sometime soon! Good luck!

[photo: Marisa and her boyfriend at the Rotunda at the University of Virginia]

Jeff Jarvis makes some great points on the announcement of Howard Stern's removal from some Clear Channel stations. A huge outpouring of comments on the post as well and some great links to external references.

I have no problem with people having issues with certain decency. I have no problem with Clear Channel making a decision to drop Stern from their stations. It's their business. I do have a problem with these people who sit there in their ivory tower now and try and claim that things they liked two months ago are now indecent. Stop blurting out "told you so's" and start realizing what slippery slope we're all heading towards.

[update] More good points over at John Robb's blog, comments included; Lost Remote's Richard Warner chimes in; Chris at Media Watch adds some quality thoughts. Stern himself blames the President for the changes taking place in broadcasting.

Lore Sjöberg over at Wired News writes today about the Alternative Press Expo, which took place in San Francisco this past weekend.

The moral to the story? "[T]he printed page still has a cachet that the Web can't hope to match."

For once, print truly seems to reign over the realm of the techno-savvy. I'd have to say that having something like a comic book in hand is definitely a good thing. Recently, I purchased the first comics I've bought in years, the Marvel 1602 series issues 1, 2, and the current #7. I haven't read comic books in a really long time - what I did notice was a lack of "grain" to the pages, but that's okay - it's that it's drawn art in a different way, and the story was catchy.

Those of us who think paper publications are anywhere near their death knell are far from on target, it would seem - at least from this "alternative" press perspective.

Molly Ivins thinks that not only should we keep paying attention to John Edwards, but that perhaps we need to re-think how we're reacting towards the end of Howard Dean's campaign for the Democratic Nomination.

Ivins points out that Dean "did tap into some real political anger," and asks, "What was so scary about Dean?" I'll agree with the first quote, because he definitely allowed some people to get involved who would never been close to the political process, most likely - but that same "anger" that Dean unleashed in the people seemed to be a basis for what Dean had to offer - and that scared a lot of people.

As much as I never supported Dean, and truly thought he wouldn't get that far in the campaign (not that Wesley Clark, who I had been supporting, did much better), I have to concur with Ivins' closing line, "Gee, thanks for helping keep democracy alive when it looked fairly dicey." It's a simplistic way of looking at it, but if anyone brought life and interest to the campaign trail this year, it was Howard Dean. Publications and networks should be thankful.

Definitely check out PJNet's interview with Tom Mangan, copy editor at the San Jose Mercury News.

Mangan makes some great points about why editors are still necessary, even though people thorougly enjoy reading a lot of unaltered blogs. And he's spot on. Sure, some blogs make a point of cranking out posts - I maintain a few others where I cruise through and don't necessarily self-edit myself. But I attempt to do a better job at this blog, just because it's more true to my writing style and needs to be "cleaner". He states that "Bloggers need to understand that their typos, their misspellings, their errors in fact and judgment cost them in the eyes of readers, and if they insist on going it alone they have to be comfortable with a small audience of people who don't hold their errors against them." How many times have we heard that in various places on the web? Unfortunately, that advice isn't heeded, for the most part.

I guess it's all about prioritizing - what are you trying to get out of your blog - is it there for venting, for reporting something new and important, or a place to test out your journalism skills?

Kudos to Leonard Witt for his "IM Interviews". I've been making some headway doing them via email, but I'm glad to see IM is a viable option.

editorsweblog.org points us to an article from last May at ReadMe where Steve Bryant talks big about bloggers, including Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, and Dan Gillmor.

The editorsweblog folks preface the link/writeup with "It's not recent, but it remains a good synthesis on what is collaborative journalism." and I don't think I need to add anything else to it. Happy reading!

Yesterday's article by Timothy Karr over at MediaChannel.org asks "Could Kerry Suffer the 'Dean Effect'?"

I, for one, don't think this would occur, as I truly think that Kerry has a significant lead and don't see his campaign exploding anytime soon. I do, however, believe that John Edwards could absolutely take the nomination for the Democratic party in 2004.

Karr writes, "Edwards Turns on Charm", and there is no denying it. I think that if Edwards' ability to win over a crowd would allow him to overtake Kerry, I don't think it's the same animal as what happened to Dean. Dean was finished the moment the "scream" took place in Iowa, even though it was made out to be 1000% worse than what it really was. This would be pure showmanship and composure. I think that the linchpin in this candidacy might be how positivity vs. negativity works when the advertising spots start hitting the airwaves.

My read for the day is this post by Tim Porter where he describes his coinage "informational incest" to a T. If you didn't understand what the term was before, read the post and the included links, and it should be clear as day.

By telling is how it is, not by being "media personalities...commentators...hawkers, squawkers or gawkers" but "journalists," the news can be reported as news, not what someone else wants you to report as the truth or fact, clarifies Porter via points made by Eric Alterman and Michael Tomansky in American Prospect.

Porter says to "stop confusing media with journalism," and I couldn't agree more. Journalists happen to have their works published, criticized, or described through the "media" we all talk about. But they are their own men and women. They have an ability to take in a subject, interview, or event, digest it all, and convey it in a way where we, the reader, can pick it up in our publications, our television / radio programs, see what they have to say, and formulate a picture in our head of what went on. That's how your opinions come to fruition and you gain/lose interest in a story. The journalist does more than tell you what happened - it's part of their skill to point out intricacies or portray what the facts might be based on the "truths" that are given to them. That's why your newspaper doesn't look like basic Microsoft PowerPoint slides with five bullets under each article title and byline, leaving you to figure out what happened.

The article Porter refers to should be one of those "print a copy" things that anyone with an interest in journalism should read and save. Everyone needs a head-check once in a while, including those who work for the "media". What I really like about the collective works referred to here is that no one person has been lambasted or made to feel small based on any actions they might have done as a "journalist" in recent times - they just try to get the collective members of the crowd to realize where their intentions should stand.

Cyberjournalist.net reports on changes taking place at that other New York-area focused newspaper, Newsday.

Changes have taken place on both the website and in the print edition, with a major change is the "back-page approach, which takes the tabloid's longtime sports section design -- which begins on the back page -- and emulates it in other sections," as reported in Editor & Publisher. This would cause the sports-first reader to jump into the paper but not necessarily just start at the last page and go back. Interesting. I'm really curious to see if this makes a difference.

A lot of people in the NY Metro area don't give a lot of credit to Newsday (including myself, on numerous occasions) for their reporting, but it is a major publication and has some significant readership. While the typical reader might be coming from Long Island, it doesn't mean Newsday isn't on top of NYC-related news. Kudos to Newsday on this change.

And for regular Newsday readers (website or paper), you can contact the publication about your reaction to their changes here for website feedback or here for print edition comments. They have a link entitled "Redesign Reactions?" at the top of the site, in case you didn't notice.

Jeff Jarvis posts an update to Sunday's post about the George Meagher quote issue in the New York Times. Looks like a correction is forthcoming, and that Mr. Meagher is not a Republican.

It's been chimed in on from a few places, including Instapundit and Buzz Machine (via Instapundit...), but I think this is worth making a bigger deal of. The New York Times quoted a gentleman named George Meagher in this article on February 3rd, stating he was an Independent. Yesterday, the Times quoted Meagher again, but now he's a Republican. The quote seems re-jiggered to fit the story, and some other things seem paraphrased to make do as well.

Now I don't really have a problem with using someone as a source multiple times, but when 1) the quote seems tinkered with and 2) you've changed some facts about a person in only a couple weeks' time, that's just not right. It's not the first time that something like this has come up - and as much as I don't agree with her on most topics, Ann Coulter seems to have it right when referring to Greg Packer, who, for a while, was the Times' regular quote machine. (scroll about 3/4 down for his name)

Buzz Machine's Jeff Jarvis has actually sent an email directly to Mr. Meagher, and we'll see if he gets a response on his dealings with the Times' reporter. It doesn't seem to be who takes the reins at the paper, something keeps coming out. Has the Times been "tainted" so much that it won't come clean until there is some sort of witch-hunt type action, or is it just a few people who seem to be causing problems for the greater group? I'd have to lean towards the latter, but for the Times to be held at the regard that it is and continue to have problems such as these is just crazy, in my estimation. As an optimist, I would have to give the Times the benefit of the doubt - as a realist, I see that there are problems deeper than what has come out so far. If you're the publication that many people consider part of their morning ritual, you have to be on the top of your game at all times.

Rachel over at Media Life Magazine answers a reader when they ask for her advice on how to find a new position in the media industry when they "Want Outta Here" as their name suggests.

You, too, can ask Rachel your career advice questions by writing her at askrachel2004@yahoo.com. No word on whether Rachel's email will change when 2005 rolls around.

We all know that ratings seemingly rule the roost when it comes to deciding what's going to be a program that sticks in the prime-time lineup, and which programs walk, or make their way to the summer schedule. The endless Nielsen ratings we hear about are in your USA Today to read and see what people are watching. Somewhere, some television exec is sitting a room watching the results change for various programs, and making decisions based on them.

Well, what would happen if the "ratings" system wasn't what really mattered?

Earlier today I came across this press release from a group of television viewers, or more specifically, fans of the NBC "dramedy", as they describe it, "Ed". The fans seem to not only be concerned about losing their favorite program, but the loss of sit-com or dramatic programming, asking "How far will the networks go before all scripted television becomes extinct?" More information can be found at the "Ed" campaign headquarters".

This is definitely a shot across the bow of so called "reality" programming where people are put on an island, in an apartment, given jobs, or whatever, and everything is filmed. While some of it can be entertaining, a lot of people (including myself) feel that year after year (or season after season) of basically the same issues gets kind of...well...boring after a while. Interestingly enough, here seems to be some industrious individuals who have banded together to not only "campaign" to keep a show on the air, but reportedly have an advertisement in today's Variety magazine.

Could this make a difference? I'm not sure it could, as networks have already made a lot of decisions having to do with the Fall schedule for this year - but I suppose we'll see in the coming days, especially if this story gets picked up by some online or print publications. Could it turn out that the people that matter more are the ones who seem to "care" about their programs, rather than those who just happen to have the television program on at any given moment?

Best of luck, fans of "Ed"!

In the ongoing series of interviews being put together for The Media Drop, I've mainly focused on members of the traditional broadcast media. This time around, I've gone in another direction in getting some great Q&A in with Mark Vrieling, CEO of ScreenPlay, Inc., a purveyor of master quality content including over 35,000 music videos, 6,000 movie trailers, and "hundreds of hours" of interviews and programming. He is also the owner of RainCity Video, a chain of "art house" movie shops in the Seattle area. He was more than helpful in providing some insights not only on his career, but on what ScreenPlay has to offer.

TMD: First off, tell me a little bit about how you ended up interested in a career around film and video?

MV: I guess the two biggest influences on my choice of career are my dyslexia and love of music and video. Having dyslexia has always made traditional learning environments more challenging for me than for most. Although my comprehension has always been very good, my reading speed, spelling and the ability to put thoughts on paper have been a challenge for me. As a balance to that I have always gravitated toward and found great comfort in music and TV/film.

During the late 70s when I was in college I discovered the media lab at my school and I spent hours watching 3/4” video tapes on all kinds of subjects and fell in love with the idea of audio/visual media on demand. Finding out that there was so much more available to be seen on a TV than just what the networks wanted to provide to you at that particular moment was a big revelation to me. I remember thinking how cool it would be if people could have access to a library like that at home. So when video rental stores started getting popular in the mid 80s I decided to start my own - with a twist.

In addition to New Releases I added special interest, deep catalogue, foreign, etc. The predominant model at the time for a video store (and unfortunately still is the model) is that video is a means were you can watch new release movies at home before they are on regular TV. Although it is not uncommon for video stores to hold on to a lot of old movies, the world of possibilities in education, travel and special interest programming never really took off. Even a well-stocked library of classics, foreign or PBS shows is relatively rare. Although providing New Releases is an important part of RainCity Video, our catalogue sections are what set us apart from other stores.

TMD: After finding your profile on LinkedIn, I did a little “look-see” at the ScreenPlay website, and learned a little bit about your company. I could write something myself, but I always find that asking someone what the two/three sentence runthru answer they give to people who say “What do you do?” is very helpful. So, what do you do?

MV: One of the lessons I learned early on as a video storeowner was how powerful an advertising medium the TV can be. I could take a movie that had not rented in weeks and play it on the in-store TV and invariably some one would want to rent it before I had finished playing it. It was not much of a leap from that observation to “Hey, what if I started playing movie previews in my store, I bet I could invigorate demand for movies that are starting to slow down.”

That idea is the foundation of ScreenPlay. We acquire video trailers, music video, video games and other pop culture video content from hundreds of sources throughout the world and produce programs that play on in-store TVs. We started by providing programming for video stores and music stores but over time we branched out to include businesses of all kinds. (Kind of a custom "MTV" for businesses). From there, we branched into streaming trailers on the Internet. Movie studios send us the video they want to be available on the Internet and we do all the encoding, hosting and streaming for them. From here we hope to start streaming music videos on the Internet but we still have some rights issues to overcome. [ed: Aren't we all!?]

TMD: As a consumer, give me an example of something I might see during my daily errands that is produced by ScreenPlay?

MV: If you go into a video store and they are playing video trailers on their TV - it is probably us; as well as mall based clothing stores that have music videos playing on their TVs. We also supply to bars, nightclubs and casinos that play music videos on their TVs. On the Internet, if you watch trailers on any of the Disney sites, the New York Times, Amazon.com or hundreds of other sites, the streaming file you are watching is originating from ScreenPlay.

[ed: pretty impressive! The "behind the scenes" companies always fascinate me.]

TMD: For a follow-up to that question, how do you go about acquiring new business – I was, unfortunately, not familiar with the ScreenPlay brand before finding your profile – is there any possibility that the name will be out there – much like one of the “partners” listed on your site, Muzak?

MV: We do not market to end-user, so I am not surprised you have not heard of us. We market directly to businesses that we know could use our services. Large video retailers, music store chains, and large retail chains are pretty well defined and easy for us to target. On the Internet the studios find us to be a very useful service so they introduce customers who could use our streaming services.

TMD: Moving back to the “who are your customers” area, are they regional in nature, or has the Internet enabled your company to “get the word out”, so to speak?

MV: We do have some regional chains that we service but for the main part we offer our services throughout the United States and Canada. Yes, the Internet has become not only a market for us but also a major tool. Graphic approvals that used to take days to receive because of mailing time now take hours. We can stream or download questionable content to get instant feedback from customers saving days of production time.

TMD: Who are your competitors? Do they also serve as “partners” in some capacity?

MV: We do not have many competitors because we are so specialized but we do go after the same market that Muzak and others go after on the in-store side of our business. They create audio environments where we create audio / video environments. With Muzak they are both a competitor and a re-seller of our service. Muzak is so much larger than we are I don’t think they really see us as a threat. On the Internet side, our biggest competitors are businesses that set up a division within their own company to do what we do. We are usually more cost effective than doing it themselves but some business are just more comfortable outsourcing then others.

TMD: Some people mention GreenCine, who is a competitor of Netflix in the online-movie rental industry, as being the “indie” movie rental store – would you compare your typical customer to a GreenCine customer? And if so, what does your Seattle based brick-and-mortar store offer to that customer that GreenCine doesn’t?

MV: Sorry I don’t know GreenCine, I will look them up and let you know later. But in general, 70% of retailers make their rental decision the day they rent so I doubt that mail order rental will ever be a huge competitor to brick & mortar stores. Netflix estimates that mail order will not get to be much more than 10% of the industry.

TMD: Your bio lists your goal “to make media affordable and available for everyone - why watch MTV when you can program your own?” Obviously without giving away your whole business plan, tell me what ScreenPlay can do to make this a possibility – or recommend partners you might have where the readers can move towards “programming their own” media?

MV: ScreenPlay has a video library that rivals MTV and is currently only licensed for business-to-business use. What I would really like to do is make that library available over the web to the general public. I would love to let people build play lists and play them back the way they do with their iTunes audio files. Kind of a do it your self on-line MTV.

Personally I like the mixed tapes I get from friends better than what I hear on the radio, it could be kind of like blogs, good video programmers (VJs) would find their own audience. Technically, we are capable of doing this right now. This is very similar to what we provide on a business-to-business basis. The issue is licensing, the music labels need to reform their rules on media uses on the Internet before we could do anything like this legally.

TMD: And finally, what is a trend, product, or occurrence that you see coming in the near future in the overall media world that might not be on everyone’s mind as of yet?

MV: The biggest trend I see is the proliferation of homes with high bandwidth. 56k just doesn’t cut it for media over the web. Sure we can make a herky-jerky tiny picture that moves with a 56k modem, but it takes at least 128 to really do anything. A standard DSL at 256 is even on the low side but at least it is a base that you can start to do something interesting. We have seen an astounding increase in high bandwidth users accessing our content over the last year. At the same time that bandwidth is going up, the codecs are getting better. MPEG4, Windows Media 9 and the latest Real Media and QuickTime codecs are getting really good at making streaming files run smoother and look better at DSL speeds.

Keep your eye on ScreenPlay (literally!), you might be hearing more from them in the future. Being someone that seems like a small player to the casual investigator but turns out to be a much bigger deal and a potential pioneer of sorts in the media channel can definitely work to your advantage. Best of luck to Mark, ScreenPlay, and RainCity in the future!

This morning, I received a copy of Tim Karr's latest article over at mediachannel.org and just had to write something about it. The article is entitled "A Smear's Journey to Page One," and specifically documents the latest headline to make its way in front of all of us, that being the Kerry intern affair rumor.

The article has some great quotes from New Yorker media critic Ken Auletta and background information from the co-author of today's Daily News article which decries the original story as posted on Matt Drudge's Drudge Report. The theme of Mr. Karr's article around the fact that major media outlets are talking about a story that was on the "second tier" of media outlets (starting with Drudge and others, and making its way through the blogosphere), and, after being kaboshed by one parties, made its way to the front pages of the Daily News, New York Times, and others when it reached some semblance of legitimacy.

I do find it very interesting that there were "mainstream" publications that ran with Drudge's rumour at the onset - no wonder people claim media bias for the right and left in various cases - it's because it is obviously there in a lot of cases.

Canada's Broadcaster magazine wrote last Tuesday that the country's "largest privately-owned broadcaster", Standard Radio, will "join with CBC/Radio-Canada and SIRIUS Satellite Radio in a joint venture to bring satellite radio to Canadians."

According to the article, Sirius' competitor, XM, already has an application in for a license to broadcast to the Canadian listening public. Interestingly enough, Canada's FCC-like governing body, the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission) had asked late in 2003 for additional players to join the fray to bring satellite radio, and obviously additional competition and choice, to the market.

As a huge fan of satellite radio, and a user SIRIUS service at home, I think that this is a great sign that both XM and SIRIUS seem to be able to expand their service outside of the States at this point. As for the product itself, while it definitely takes some getting used to (since I'm so stuck in your ways of what I usually listen to), I really enjoy the service, and find that having no commercials for a nominal cost every month is absolutely worth it. There is a great variety of channels to choose from, and, contrary to my friend at Clear Channel's views, I don't "get sick" of the one channel I'm on - I've never listened to it long enough that it repeated on me, unlike (gulp!) EVERY Clear Channel station I've ever sat and listened to for three hours. Heck, when I can tell you what time a song is going to come on for about three weeks, that's a bad sign.

Cyberjournalist reports [via Romenesko] that Dow Jones Newswires has removed spell check from their tools to be used when writing a piece. No word yet if they've requested special versions of MS Word for their writers.

[The Media Drop makes a blatant assumption that Dow Jones uses Windows and Microsoft Office technology, of course]

CNN (who hasn't removed pop-ups) is reporting that CBS, fresh off its apology for the Super Bowl fiasco at halftime, has released another mea culpa.

This time, the net is trying to relieve some tension caused after Andre 3000's Native American-themed performance at the Grammys last week was seen as having "the most disgusting set of racial stereotypes aimed at American Indians that I have ever seen on TV", or so said Sean Freitas, board member of the Native American Cultural Center in the Reuters/CNN piece.

I didn't hear about anything offensive happening yesterday on CBS, but it's still early on Monday afternoon so far - but I'll keep my eyes peeled.

According to BBC News, Microsoft has announced that it is removing pop-up advertisements from its sites across the globe. It's good to see that they've decided to do something which we have all wondered about for a long time. It was surprising to me the first time an MSN-based site had a pop-up while I was surfing on it. I hadn't thought that MS "missed the boat" on that with their customers and Internet-viewing public, but apparently I was incorrect.

One would imaging MSN's global sites make up a decent percentage of overall advertising on the 'net, and impact will be seen as "new" ways to advertise come about.

World Magazine's Ed Veith posts today about the Trio network's "Feeding the Beast: The 24-Hour News Revolution" feature that premieres tonight.

I'm not sure that I have this channel (it's in there somewhere, I guess), as Trio points out that DirecTV may have removed it from my programming. If you have Trio, check out the program at 9pm (Eastern) tonight.

Looking to find out how Instapundit Glenn Reynolds gets his daily fill? Check out this article at Wired for some quality insights.

[via Robert Cox' The National Debate]

If you've ever watched The Sports Reporters on ESPN, then you know it usually ends up with one or two comments being said which get jumped on by a few other people - today was really kind of different than normal, and I'm surprised at the lack of surprise and vigor that the statement I'd like to go into received.

The Kansas City Star's Jason Whitlock, a regular on the show, was discussing the issue of steroids as related to Major League Baseball and the sports' fans. While Bob Ryan, Ian O'Connor, and host John Saunders seemed to have a very different opinion, Whitlock truly seemed convinced that the steroid issue wouldn't be a big deal to baseball, and that fans just wouldn't care. I'll give you that steroids might not have been on the top of the list of "issues" fans care about, as discussed here on CNN by the Gallup Poll's Frank Newport back in December - but that was before there was "proof" of how close steroids were to our players.

I'd also have to say, at the very least, that the bulk of columnists disagree with your theory on this. I'll take three of four people on this morning's show as a decent litmus test. As columnists write on the topic and players get bigger, talk starts moving around the league. Every city has an example. Back in May of 2002, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer was talking about Bret Boone. Barry Bonds has had rumours flying for a few years now. Houston's Ken Caminiti came out and said that he was using steroids and that it was prevalent in the game. I know people grow up and buff up, and technology and exercise has improved in ten years, but I remember a Ken Caminiti baseball card from like 1987 where he was a scrawny kid - he's one of the more jacked players I've seen in....ever.

It's fine that you (and I'm paraphrasing without a transcript here, so apologies for any errors) "went to school and played sports with players who were using steroids", and that "it didn't seem like a big deal" or whatever it was that you said, but I'd really have to disagree with you, Mr. Whitlock. I remember it being a pretty big deal when certain people I went to high school with left school in June and were the same as they'd been for the last two years, but when I saw them in September they were only *slightly* more huge than they should have been. Gee, that wasn't too odd seeing them all of a sudden go from average player with talent to star player. No one thought that was a good thing, to be honest - sure it was nice to have a competitive team, but don't think we weren't all walking around going "What happened to him?" in the hallways.

If Sammy Sosa had been caught in the locker room with a needle in his backside, instead of cork in a bat, would we think that 1998 was an utter disaster? I think the bulk of the population would have to agree. While I certainly believe Sammy used the bat in batting practice almost exclusively, just because I give him that much credit, I don't buy what he says about batting practice as being true for the game. Sure, fans want to see the longball - but we don't want cheaters. It's funny to watch high-bouncy balls fly out of your bat, but two seconds later when you realize what happened, it's not a good thing.

This isn't the WWE, Mr. Whitlock. If we wanted juiced forearms, we would turn that on. It was bad enough that the Mike Gallegos (no offense, Mike) were hitting opposite field home runs ten years ago out of nowhere, and baseball took us all to task stating that there was no difference in the baseballs. But to honestly think that we wouldn't care if it came to light that Barry Bonds' trainer, who was indicted recently on steroid distribution were ever to come out and say that Bonds was participating in taking these products, it would be a disaster, in my opinion. I know I would care, and the other fans who actually care about the game would do so as well. Read what these fans had to say when talking about Sosa when they were asked about the corked bat incident.

I think Jason Whitlock is vastly underestimating baseball's fanbase, and I truly hope that he's not surprise when fans continue to turn on "the National Pastime". Baseball doesn't need a disaster like this - 1998 helped after the strike a fe