Dear Internet,

Please stop subscribing me to your mailing lists. I don't mind the pitches (as long as I actually write about what you're sending me) and everything else that comes in (sans spam, natch) but if I'm not subscribing to your mailing list, and have no idea who you are, you should know that you're spamming me.

Sincerely,

Tom

This is iyet another reason why I've been in love with Netflix since day one and feel they have the edge over Blockbuster, even with that company's latest announcement that customers can return any mailed video to a store location and get a free rental. I mean, free rentals are great and all, but 90% of the time I wasn't getting the video I wanted from the store in the first place, hence my online subscription.

Last weekend, we finally got the DirecTV HD programming and dish set up so we could fully utilize the television we have at home, and while the number of channels available is kind of disappointing (and I don't want to hear about cable this or that, I'm not changing), some of the programming is flat out staggering. That being said, I'm watching FOX's coverage of the Yankees-Angels game this afternoon from Yankee Stadium, and the images aren't really that pretty, whether over the dish or the over-the-air antenna I have. YES' game film seems much better, and as we keep getting in-game scores from the Chicago White Sox game, I've gotta say that this is crappy, compared to others I've seen. Now I know that FOX uses 720p, and while the progressive has its advantages over interlaced, the 1080i is so far superior it's not funny. That being said, what's up with the garbage coverage at Yankee Stadium today compared to other games?

FMQB informs about a bill introduced by a Vermont legislator to halt the possibility of censorship of programming on cable/satellite television and the Internet.

Want to see an uproar of the financial sense? People would start seriously limiting their cable television and other Internet usage if censorship went into effect across the board on those distribution channels - or at least try doing things on the down low. You see, technology always wins. If we're going to make uncensored content illegal in the same sense that something as horrible as child pr0n is, then we might as well just make "Fahrenheit 451" the national book.

Let's try talking some sense into ourselves before taking the nannyism to a higher level, okay?

Matthew Sheffield penned his "last words" on Dan Rather for the moment, after years of working the RatherBiased.com website with his brother Greg. There's no need to point out what the highlights are, because it's all well worth the time it'll take you to read - along with the links.

When they said "The Last Word," they meant it.

Thanks, RBDC guys, great job.

Via Steve Rubel, I've just heard about Susan Mernit's post about the Associated press (quietly) putting RSS feeds up on their website. I've got to say that not only am I really psyched about this, but I think it has a lot bigger of an impact than we're immediately thinking.

This comes shortly after Business Wire launched "customized" RSS feeds for their PressPass subscribers, and on the heels of Bloglines being purchased by Ask Jeeves. What does it mean? Well, it means the new distribution method has officially been named, more or less. Not that we had any doubts, but Dave Winer et al definitely get a round of whatever brew they want from me, next time they're in town.

When the Business Wire thing came about, my thought was that not only were they making their content more readily available to journalists, they were ensuring their survival for the time being. Obviously that topic didn't come up while speaking with the company, but that's what I was thinking nonetheless. Business Wire needed RSS in order to keep journalists up to speed with what their clients were saying and doing, and this was the only way to do so. Obviously the technosavvy are already all over RSS, but surely it's not too far away that the rest of the journo-population are doing similar things, right?

When I caught Jeff Jarvis' post on the subject, it furthered my already sneaking suspicions about the AP's move - it actually changes distribution of news - at least for bloggers. No longer are you "slave" to other news sources who may or may not have news feeds. You're effectively "on" the wire. While it's never going to be any story (okay, never say never), it's a significant portion of whatever stories the AP is delivering to its members. And. You. Now. Get. Them. All.

After quickly firing off an email to Jarvis, I bounced this around on IM a bit (thanks, Jason), and thought it was worthwhile to share. Here's a quick excerpt:

As those who are web savvy (bloggers excluded, for argument's sake) grow up to be journalists, they're going to know RSS as the way to go for everything - web surfing for a 15 year old right now is probably very different from what a fifteen year old in 1998 did. AP *is* the news source, and pleases not only us, the blog readers and writers (among others) with these feeds, but other news organizations as well - but they still distribute to members through their own channels - which perhaps have evolved into RSS. A wire service, which could be boiled down to information distribution for $600 or whatever, can't get the word out to same journalists, bloggers, and readers without keeping up with the Joneses - which RSS does. It's about survival for some, while "making it better" for others, as AP would be classified.

With regard to the AP, the next question is, do bloggers altogether stop referencing news sources if they're going to be pulling significant information from RSS feeds - and do the news sites that previously got traffic from bloggers - hell, from Drudge - now get hurt by the lack of eyeballs viewing their advertisements? This is momentous, in a way.

Now I in no way meant to demean Business Wire, PR Newswire, or whoever else in that space - just trying to make a quick and dirty generalization for the sake of argument. Which brings us to the final point - is this the 'killer app' move that the AP has done to actually change how news is distributed? This can be simply articulated by using bloggers as "today's" example:

Old way: News came out on the wire, and various news sites / outlets picked it up. You, the reader, went to "News Station X" on the Internet, linked to the article, wrote your comments, followup, or whatever, and that was that. "News Station X" benefited (hopefully) from the readership of anyone cruising through your blog and going to read the full story you mentioned/linked to. "News Station X" can claim yz number of readers for the month, and can sell advertising as such.

New way: News came out on the wire, and various news sites / outlets picked it up. You, the blogger, have a subscription to the feed, and your reader automatically snags any article that has to do with a topic that you cover on your blog. You click on the link through the RSS feed, are directed to the AP.org website, and go from there. Blogger Y links to the AP.org website, therefore removing "News Station X" from the equation, readership declines for "News Station X" (as much as can be argued that bloggers deliver traffic), and advertising rates do not increase over time.

Now perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but consider mass-trafficked blogs such as an Instapundit or a website like Drudge Report. I'm sure MyWay.com or Yahoo! News is more than happy to take the 1,000,000 visitors that Drudge sent them for the article about the three headed love child of some government official. But that might not be the case forever, if this continues as it seems like it could.

Just my two cents.

[update] Rafat Ali has more on the situation and my speculation (though not so wild, really). It looks like the AP's feeds will ultimately lead readers who click on the feeds to an AP member's site "closest" to wherever they are located through geotargeting. What's not clear if you'll be able to "choose" a member site which you prefer, much like you can through their site when you are looking for a local member now. I can't say for sure I would always choose the most local paper to wherever I was - and what about while traveling abroad? Just wondering. Long-term, I still think the AP is taking a bit off the top of what its member sites are doing - people are pulling feeds from the "source," which leads to less people going to the news sites on a whim to visit, whether or not those sites have feeds in the first place. But at the least, this is positive with regard to the concerns I expressed above.

This post comes courtesy of my pal Notorious MiG, who has a bone to pick with Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim.

From the Sports Writers are Idiots File:

Notorious MiG was looking over the results from the Australian open when he came upon these comments from some fool named Jon Wertheim who has borrowed all of his Russian knowledge from a re-run of Rocky IV.

"Russian women: The Revolution is old news, but like those Marushka Dolls they just keeping coming. Seven Soviettes made it into the Round of 16."

First off Jon boy -- they're not called "Marushka Dolls" they're called "Matryoshka Dolls". If you're too stupid or too lazy to get the spelling correct, I'm sure there is some copy editor, fact checker or intern on the Sports Illustrated staff who can do your work of correctly spelling it for you.

"Soviettes"? -- Yeah that's original. About as original as everyone putting backwards "R"'s on their web sites to make them look Russian. The Soviet Union bit the dust a decade ago -- time to get a new idea. While you're at it you can also stop saying "The Russian Revolution" the "The Russians Are Coming" and "From Russia With Love" every time you want to write about Russian tennis players.

Also, calling a Russian a Soviet is like calling a guy from the Republic of Ireland "British." You can wind up getting punched in the face as there are plenty of us from the former USSR (Russians, Lithuanians, etc.) who find the term "Soviet" offensive.

Seriously, any time sports writers attempt to show off how witty or profound or brilliant they are by injecting bits of history, culture or current events into their articles they only succeed in showing show profoundly ignorant they are of most things historical or cultural since they end up getting their facts all wrong.

Maybe if Jon Wertheim and all the other sports writers would stop drooling over Masha Sharapova and turn off the SportsCenter every so often and take the time to read something about Russia (or anything else for that matter) they wouldn't come across as complete dolts. Provided they even know how to read.

Well, that wasn't so bad, was it? Okay, it was. I'd also file this in the "just because they wrote it in a column doesn't mean they have their facts straight" folder as well.

Well, it's not media related, but I'm sharing anyway.

Last week, I finally bit the bullet and signed up for Vonage service. After almost three months of not using my home phone (we had it turned off), I figured my TiVo would really appreciate being able to call in once in a while - and having a cellphone handy isn't always convenient. So here's the deal - if you're thinking about going to a VoIP provider like Vonage, do it.

The usual criticisms are obviously for real, i.e. if the power goes out, so does your phone. But considering the fact that probably 75%+ of us don't have a phone that runs without being plugged in, I'd say that isn't such a valid argument: enter cellphone. The other big complaint is about plugging in handsets to the router - again, not such a big issue. Between plugging your home's wiring in (if you're so inclined) to hooking up a multiple-handset base, there are solutions.

I also consider myself pretty tech savvy, so figured I could pop this hardware out of the box and hook it right up. Not only did it work without looking at the directions, but the "feel around" method took less than five minutes. Their router works just fine with my existing Linksys router (they stack!), and plugging the Vonage router directly into the cable modem allows for a smarter (almost like building in your own MPLS) traffic management setup - your phone calls will be priority - unless, of course, you don't want them to be.

I was very surprised to make a few connections, reboot my modem and routers, wait till all the activity lights were activated, and pick up the phone to a dial tone. I won't say that the sound quality is the same as my old landline connection, but it's miles ahead of the "VoIP" that I used a few years back. Echo cancellation is in full effect, and the price is absolutely right.

Obviously not all of their customers are blogging, but I'd have to say that the company is banking on word of mouth - and in a good way. From the ability to transfer calls, use *69 as many times as we want, and check my voicemails online, the service has it all - for less than $25, before sales tax. To boot, they run a couple different "affiliate" type promotions, one of which gets you two months free for having people sign up.

But it's more than that - to be honest, it's a piece of mind kinda situation. I had signed up a year or so ago for an "all you can eat" plan through one of the major phone companies, and the price was good - until you added up the taxes, fees, and other various surcharges. Let's just say that a $45 bill isn't anywhere near $45 once it's all said and done. Heck, I added a second line whose taxes and fees matched the monthly cost of the phone. So I ask - if it works, and you're comfortable with it, then why not go for it?

Vonage's FAQs are more than helpful, and their customer service reps actually make an effort to understand your level of technological knowledge - I had to call once, just to make a change to regarding porting my telephone number, and bounced around some ideas while I was on the phone. Let's just say I was impressed.

Oh - and it does work just fine with my TiVo.

Redlands Daily Facts has a story by David Kronke about NBCU boss Jeff Zucker's reaction to FCC Chairman Michael Powell's resignation, which has brought about "optimism" at the network. While Zucker appears positive on the change, not everyone is so half-full on the situation.

As for myself, I'm "cautiously pessimistic," if one can be. I think a lot of people may be openly critical of some of the suggested replacments that were discussed by the Wall Street Journal's Anne Marie Squeo. For instance, Rebecca Klein [more here] is a former Commissioner and Chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission - during the Enron fallout. That said, Klein has a good background in both telecommunications and utilities, and is well connected to the current administration. Also suggested is Michael Gallagher, currently working in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. I'm not as familiar with his background, but his efforts in spectrum allocation would be integral as FCC Chairman. Consultant Janice Obuchowski, who was described in 1996 as "walking away a big winner" by Wired when she was behind the founding of Nextwave was described in the WSJ as having a "a good relationship with both President Bush and his father." As "easy" as it would be to place current FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin into the role, Squeo points out that he "has sometimes caught flak from the White House for battling Mr. Powell." I might expect him to get the "people's choice," through looking through his background and previous opinions, but he has a conservative background, which could be an issue for some. With the expected departure of fellow FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy this year, it would be somewhat sensible to keep something intact with regard to people already briefed and involved with current matters - but that doesn't mean it'll happen.

So, cautious pessimism it is.

After the news of FCC Chairman Michael Powell's resignation on Friday, the Center for Creative Voices in Media made a statement, most prominently pointing out that Powell "will best be remembered as Chairman of the FCC for getting his responsibilities to the American people backward."

My post this week over at the Morph blog is surrounding the revelation that multiple bloggers were paid for the Dean campaign for "consulting," when in reality their "airtime" was being bought to discuss the candidate.

And from the files of "blogs have made it," Friday's free feature in the online Wall Street Journal is an article entitled "Dean Campaign Made Payments To Two Bloggers" by William Bulkeley and James Bandler.

On Monday, incoming New York Yankees pitcher Randy Johnson was caught on the street by CBS 2 in New York's Duke Castiglione and a cameraman while heading out of his hotel to take the physical required by the team, and ended up in a bit of a "jam" on his first day in the city. Johnson went a bit overboard in telling Castiglione and cameraman Vinny Everett that he didn't want to talk to them at the moment, and not to take any film of the encounter - which of course, was already rolling, and has been seen numerous times on the air.

Tuesday afternoon brought the formal introduction of Johnson as a Yankee, and the first thing he did when he was given the microphone was to apologize to the fans, the press, et al. Not wanting to keep his name out of the news for another day, Castiglione promptly introduced himself, "Hi Randy, Duke Castiglione from Channel 2 - remember me?" This brought a bit of laughter from the crowd, and basically embodied what every single talk show host and sports player believes about the sports media in New York - that it's not about the on-field play, it's about the big story that makes it on the back page of the Daily News or New York Post. Bob Raissman seems to agree with that sentiment. Castiglione claims he was doing his job, when it is obvious to everyone that he was just making himself part of the story. Thankfully for him, Channel 2 isn't exactly running up the ratings for sports viewership.

Maybe he's just upset that Channel 2 lost 21 Yankees games to Channel 9 last week.

Bob Kohn provides a solid fisking of Bill Moyers' final appearance on the PBS program Now in two separate posts on Wednesday. Kohn points out something that many who criticize those criticizing FOX News have said all along - that people need to start realizing that there is a huge difference between commentary and news reporting. Using Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others as examples of biased reporting and propaganda is not the way to go. Those are commentary shows, and are labeled as such. Says Kohn:

Fox News provides two basic kinds of programming: news and news analysis. In its news broadcasts--what you view at the top and bottom of the hour, live coverage of events during so-called "news alerts," and during programs called, Fox News Live and The Fox Report--Fox presents 100% straight news. If Moyers thinks they are slanted, then show me the evidence. I'd gladly be among the first to condemn it.

I'll second that motion.

Just wanted to take a moment and wish everyone a Merry Christmas!!!!

(well, if you're so inclined, of course.)

Just wanted to share my thoughts and prayers for those close to Johnny Oates, former Texas Rangers and Baltimore Orioles manager, who died Friday from a brain tumor. He was 58.

Details on Oates' career as a player are available here and as a manager here, courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com.

I have a problem with journalism - or, should I say, some journalists.

Sure, it's not a surprising statement to make these days, but it's something I'm starting to notice as I correspond with some reporters, editors, and other staffers at publications across the U.S., and, in fact, across the world.

My specific issue is with attitude. It's not even liberal bias or conservative bias or anything like that. There are two divisions here: A) Me, as a blogger, being treated like I have no idea what I am asking / reading / writing / doing on my blog and that since I'm not a trained journalist and don't work for a vaunted publication that I'm not worth a comment or a response (this also goes for a few choice PR professionals in some cases, to be honest, but that's a whole different post) or B) That some people really do have a holier-than-thou attitude in general, even towards others in the profession.

I'd been holding off on this for a while, but this morning something, set me off. I had read an op-ed earlier this week by a student editor at an university paper, regarding the local free weekly's coverage of some on-campus incidents of late. The item was highly critical of the weekly's "news" items, stating that instead of following tenets of journalism, they were injected with so much opinion, conjecture, and opinion that they weren't really news at all. I thought it was worth an entry here, as it was an interesting media criticism from a 'competitor' of sorts, so I contacted the editor of the weekly, asking if he had any comments in response to the statements about the way his publication had been handling the news. I wasn't looking for a hostile response, or an attack piece - it seemed only fair to get their say, as this was a direct shot at the paper's journalistic integrity, in effect. This morning, I received a response. At first, I thought nothing of it - the editor stated that they get to say whatever they want every week. He also said they "saw no reason to slam an opinion columnist for expressing his opinion." Sure, it's not that bad, right? Or is it. Did I ask for a "slam" at all? No, I went back, re-read my request, and thought about it awhile. I was just looking for a "We believe our journalists are upholding certain standards in covering these stories, etc., etc., etc." But that's not what I got. It's that it is more about the flash and the immediate reaction to "slam" someone else, rather than just respond to a simple question about integrity. Sure, the writer was an op-ed columnist - that's fine. I'm glad I got a response from the paper. Maybe I'm making too much of the term "slam" being used in the reply - but I don't think I am.

It's not just this one instance that makes me feel like this kind of attitude is in existence. People are very quick to judge in our 24-hour news cycle kind of world, and it's very frustrating. Sure, bloggers are quick on the draw to post things, sometimes forcing themselves into regular corrections in order to keep their credibility to a certain level - but they're not alone, IMHO.

To be clear, this is in no way a slap in the face of all journalists, or even the bulk of journalists - it's a few eggs that like making a ruckus in the basket, in the interest of....something. I love reading, hearing about news in the world of media, and doing what I get to do on this blog every day - but I can see why there are so many people who use the term 'mainstream media' derisively. I don't take issue with the media as a collective - it exists for a reason, and, for the most part, does okay. It's becoming much more self-sufficient and self-'editing', if you will, when it comes to keeping people in check. Op-eds write about other op-eds. Conservative radio hosts get to comment on liberal ones, and vice versa. There are pockets of fairness that can't be argued with - there are others that have a few steps to take. But the one thing that has to be realized, if the news media wants to continue to be held at a high regard (don't start debating on this point, please), is that news is news is news - it's not spin or flash or anything else that tells the story. If you're looking to distance yourself from the competition, don't take the "South Park" way out. [Thanks to RatherBiased.com for the clip]

I thought it would be worthwhile to congratulate the Boston Red Sox on their first win of the World Series in 86 years after their four-game sweep of the St. Louis Cardinals on Wednesday evening. They did, after all, defeat my beloved Yankees in seven (gulp) games, making history as they did so.

For the last week, I've been wondering if I could feel for the Sox and their fans. After all, I am a huge New York Rangers fan, another team that went a long drought (though, I must say, only 54 years) between championship seasons. The Rangers were always taunted by their local rivals, the Devils (who were fun with "19-never" chants for awhile), and the Islanders, but were able to get out of that slump, only to soon after enter another one - the lack of playoff-bound teams. But after I thought about it awhile, I realized the Sox are much, much more embattled and universally ridiculed than the Rangers ever were.

So after attempting to root for the Cardinals for a game or two, I quickly realized that nothing would stop the Yawkey Way monsters. No ill-advised parade planning, no falls off the Green Monster for unlucky fans, not even The Curse. Hell, Mark Bellhorn kept hitting a bit.

So, while I am remiss to admit this, the Red Sox are the best team in Major League Baseball for 2004. Thankfully, though, 2004 is over as a season. Next year will bring major changes for all teams in the league, and the rivalry can continue.

In closing, one must start "hot stove baseball," the ongoing, ending-only-when-pitchers-and-catchers-report discussions, off with a bang. I have one thing to say, and one thing only. [continued after the fold]

[Thanks to Jerry for the idea!]

Dear 31 NFL teams that aren't the Oakland Raiders,

After a long and tumultuous relationship as a fan of the Raiders, from Los Angeles to Oakland, I have decided to hang up my hat, as I can't take it anymore. It's not just about the ridiculous amount of penalties the boys in black have taken over the years, nor is it about the horrible choices in backup (not to mention starting) quarterback that have plagued the team in between quality starters. It's just the overall feeling I get while trying to follow this squad. Last night, when Jerry Rice was traded away, as selfish as it was, I realized that I had paid my last respects. There's a reason that Kerry Collins was replaced in New York by a draft pick and a QB that many thought might just be finished after not winning a game in the league in years - he's terrible. You thought Rob Johnson looked bad last season, well he isn't anything compared to Mr. Collins' performance of late.

I've tried really hard to enjoy the last few years. Rich Gannon, Tim Brown, Jerry Rice, and others have helped keep the mood positive of late, but as the late Ralph Wiley once said, "Brown Rice Will Kill You." Ain't it the truth. They're both gone now, over to the NFC. Having them around was like watching a great movie on VHS, only to have the tape get chewed up as the climax of the movie was happening. Robert Gallery is stuck out there, trying to hold back rushers who probably forget why they're trying to get in the backfield - why bother, he's probably wondering.

So here I declare my free agency for NFL fanship. My DirecTV Sunday Ticket is waiting patiently for another team for me to keep up on. The Texans pulled on me a few years back, but I held off, hoping that Tony Siragusa wouldn't sit on my quarterback again. But first to worst just ain't worth it. Someone, anyone, tell me why I should like your team. While it might be hard to root for the Chargers or Broncos, I can be persuaded. Figure it this way - it took me about three years to make my way to this decision, and it's not going to happen again, after 15+ years of devotion to the Silver and Black. Fan for life in waiting, one might say. I will gladly accept your autographed jerseys, meetings with the linebacking corps, or season tickets (yeah, I know, I'm pushing it.) Just tell me why I should like team X, provide solid examples or backup, and we'll go from there.

Comments are graciously accepted on this post, or you can feel free to email me at themediadrop@gmail.com.

In response to yesterday's speculation that Michael Moore was offered the "Memogate" documents while he was working on "Fahrenheit 9/11," Jason at Moorelies wonders if it's for real or if the filmmaker only said this to hype up the batch of products he has hitting the shelves this week. It is awful convenient, you have to admit.

A few weeks ago my wife and I got Yankee tickets for Labor Day, which was scheduled as a doubleheader between the Devil Rays and the boys from the Bronx. The second game was a rainout from back in April.

Over the weekend, the Devil Rays had some games cancelled that were supposed to take place in Tampa, Florida against the Detroit Tigers. While I understand the Rays wanting to go home to Florida on Friday instead of coming to New York then, I don't know why they couldn't leave on Saturday to come to New York before Hurricane Frances closed the local airports. As of 1pm today, it's been reported that the Rays still haven't left Florida. I was supposed to be in my seats for a double dip that started at 1:05 right now, but I'm still home - and no word on what's going to happen with game time. It's not like this hurricane has been anything except predictable.

But the best line is what someone at the Yankees said on the phone when we called earlier - "If we're going for the forfeit, then that's great - gotta win games somehow!"

This morning, Michelle Malkin recalled the events that transpired Thursday evening on MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews. Specifically, she's pointing out how she was brought on to speak on certain topics, including national security, the FBI, and her book - but was told shortly before going on air that this would be changed to the Swift Boat Veterans and then her book. That's all fine, and happens all the time. But this was followed up with a switch of Dana Milbank off the panel - who was confirmed just hours earlier - and then replaced with Willie Brown. Malkin confirms via email that the replacement of Milbank was "At the last minute--literally." Yet again, perhaps something came up with Milbank, though he appeared in the next segment - but this isn't the first example of a guest being asked to come on a show to debate or discuss something in particular, only to have the topic be completely different by the time the show is taped. I'm not going to sit here and say that every talk show host or producer is "out to get" the guests that are booked, but I absolutely disagree that people aren't put into "ambush" situations on purpose on occasion.

Most journalists and some subject matter experts are slick enough to switch topics on a whim, but that doesn't mean this should become the rule, rather than the exception. Was there a super drastic change in the Swift Boat Veterans story that forced the issue to become the official topic of discussion on the show, and have Dana Milbank moved off the panel? I'm not sure that there was, to be honest.

Finally, I think if Matthews is going to hammer Malkin about the "self-inflicted" injury that John Kerry received a Purple Heart for, he's no better than anyone on any other show or if he's not going to let her answer the question in total. And clarify what they're saying. And that includes the panel on any episode of Jerry Springer's show all the way over to Sean Hannity. Something being "self-inflicted" doesn't necessarily mean that they "shot themself" or whatever. She was absolutely stating that in the book people alleged that Kerry's wounds were "self-inflicted." Perhaps if there was a breath in there for someone to not be asked something over and over, and actually have their answer not only heard - but comprehended, our media system wouldn't become a joke.

[update: 5:41pm Eastern] LGF confirms a point made on the Drudge Report that Kerry's campaign has stated that the Senator's first Purple Heart may have been self-inflicted.

On Wednesday, the Seattle Times carried an op-ed piece by Chellie Pingree of Common Cause and Jonathan Rintels of the Center for Creative Voices in Media. The item focuses on an upcoming meeting that Michael Powell, FCC Chairman, and U.S. cable and broadcast company leaders are planning to have where the topic of conversation will be of interest to the American people. Namely, whether cablecos have the right to choose whether or not they will carry all digital broadcasts from a company owning a license to send signals "over the air."

Pingree and Rintels have taken this opportunity to suggest that the FCC should provide guidance to broadcasters on offering programming that serves the public interest.

At a minimum, broadcasters should provide on their most-watched channel three hours a week of substantive coverage about important local, state and national issues, a higher percentage of non-network-produced programming, and at least two hours a week of quality election coverage. Is that too much to ask of broadcasters who received for free billions of dollars of public spectrum?

If you're not familiar with any of the programming discussed above, some of it - or at least something close to it - is typically broadcast on Sunday mornings, sometimes around the time the sun rises in the East. The op-ed suggests that having six channels worth of broadcasting ability gives the chance for networks to place this programming on-air more regularly - for the public at large to see.

My favorite part of the article is the argument from the cable companies about having to follow "must carry" rules, where the potential for a broadcast network to take up more than one channel on the cable system exists. The cablecos say that this "will force their customers to take channels they don't want." Which is, ironically, the reason that current cable customers are pushing for "a la carte" pricing on their subscriptions.

Perhaps it's just me, but if news comes out about a new television network (in this case, ABC's "ABC News Now"), and if you are a provider of television services, and someone calls and emails your media relations contact person to see if there is any chance you'll be offering the network, it's probably a good idea to get back to them before 17 days have passed, right? Especially when the political convention that was occurring at the same time as the launch is now over. Just a thought.

On Tuesday, MTV put forth its "First Ever Reality Awards" show for all to see. Not necessarily my cup of tea, but probably amusing for a lot of people. Then again, as Media Life's Marisa Hoheb points out, perhaps it wasn't as big a scream as MTV might have hoped. The reason? Well, outside of being the "reality" awards - it was only awards for "reality" shows that were broadcast on MTV. No "Best Vomiting" award to a "Fear Factor" contestant, no "Most Hookups" award to any number of folks. Just M-T-V content. Hoo boy, this is what the world has come to. It's bad enough that MTV's original channel has actually become the place to go not to see music television, but now they're patting their own "reality" show folks on the back?

So while we're on this "reality" discussion, let's move in another direction. Don't we think it's time that the term "reality" needs to be removed from discussing the shows? Sure, some of them are based in reality, and some might not even have any scripting at all (though I'm skeptical about that). But in what "reality" are seven completely different people put in a brand-spanking new apartment/house/condo (okay, some are only re-done all nice) and forced to live with one another for six months or whatever?

Shows like the aforementioned "Fear Factor" or CBS' "Amazing Race" aren't "reality shows" - they're game shows. The type of programming that has been on television forever. It's kind of funny, because we went away from having a bunch of game shows on television - prime time or otherwise - save "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune" and the most recent "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire" and "Weakest Link," only to return to that years later. There used to be many more on television, especially in the morning hours after the daily breakfast staples on the networks - then they drifted away slowly.

Producers and television folks sit there and go on and on about how these are "real" shows and that there is no involvement by the people putting the programs together - but stories like this one about Donald Trump's "Apprentice" show aren't uncommon. Game shows are scripted to some point - you create games or situations for people to figure out, but you know the "answer" on the other end. In this same fashion, producers know what kind of reaction they want to see, and they choose contestants and create situations accordingly. I'd say what would be considered "game shows" now takes up a significant portion of our current television schedule. So outside of the ones that are "game-related," we have some that I would like to re-title as "Situational Reality" or something like that.

Latest case in point: "The Casino"

If you didn't see the show, then definitely read this summary. The gist of it was that this single girl from Oregon is going to Las Vegas to "start a new life" or whatever. She shows up at the casino and marches right up to the owners, asking for a job. The best part? While she's driving through the desert, a helicopter shot provides a view of an obviously dressed up for television woman in her Jeep on her way. Umm, if she showed up randomly from Oregon, you've either a) done what is called a dramatization. Watch "Unsolved Mysteries" a few times, and perhaps it'll become clearer - but then you'll have to put "Dramatization" in the corner of the screen; or b) scripted the whole thing.

My favorite comment in the writeup is this one "Folks, this is not a reality show. This is not a scripted reality show. It is just scripted!" I think VH1's "Best Week Ever" even did a small item on this a week or so ago - when the woman walked into the casino bar to meet the owners, the commenting panelist was wondering how she 'conveniently' knew just who the casino owners were just after walking in, saying "Hey, you have a camera crew? I have a camera crew too, that's so cool!"

So yes, I know it's just semantics, but to be honest - none of these shows seem to be clean and simple and "real" at all. The situations are way too convenient, like MTV's "Real World" always choosing one or two people who will get controversial and throwing them on. If you want real, just grab seven people off New York's Houston Street at 5pm on a Friday, drag them to your loft apartment that is furnished with furniture people can actually afford, make them responsible for the rent for the next two days, and see what happens. That's reality television.