In the daily media throw-down between the raging rivers of the MSM and the growing tributaries of the Internet, the preemptive framing of issues and people using keywords, important as that is, is not the primary driver.

The primary driver for media is eyeballs, because eyeballs translate to transaction, subscription and advertising dollar revenue.

By transaction we mean somebody wants to buy some media and somebody wants to sell some media. That's how books, subscriptions, pay TV and movies work.

By advertising we mean somebody wants to sell something that is not necessarily media related and somebody may or may not want to buy it, but how will they know if you don't ask? That's how most of the big Internet companies work. They give you the information for free and in turn, you give them your eyeballs for a few seconds. To date, that's how Internet blogs, news, and political web sites work. (And of course, you cross-market your books.)

Lying behind these revenue models are two fundamentally different approaches to media, especially where news and politics are concerned. One approach is to treat media as information. The second is to treat media as entertainment. These categories are not mutually exclusive. The terms information as entertainment and entertainment as information probably make more sense when treating information and entertainment as the two poles of a dialectic. This is the better way to answer the questions, "What is my primary product? What media business am I in?"

You, Glenn, are in the information business. The people you mentioned in today's post, Ben Smith, Matt Drudge, Mickey Kaus, Eve Fairbanks and Isaac Chotiner, are in the entertainment business.

You are selling information. By information I mean the usual dictionary definition of information as knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data.

They are selling entertainment, defined as: agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement.

If you are satisfied, tired, bored, hopeless, helpless, you hate thinking, etc. entertainment almost always wins.

If you have decisions to make and don't mind the help, information is the better tool.

You are in the information business. They are in the entertainment business. The problem is that they are trying to scam the public by insisting that their form of entertainment is somehow associated with information that can be used to make rational decisions. It is a scam. It should be treated like a scam. What they are doing is fundamentally dishonest and they should be called out on it every single time they do it until the general public starts to realize that there is a distinct difference between information and entertainment.

Call these people and their organizations what they are. Don't even admit that they are news. They are not news. They do not provide information. They are entertainment. They provide distraction.

That is where the discussion should start. Every time.

You are providing information.

They are providing entertainment in the form of gossip and daytime soap with a political spin.

You hold the high ground. Don't give an inch.

To classify drugs and track their use in order to capture "criminals" is one thing. To classify drugs in order to direct business to pharmaceutical companies is another. To classify drugs in order to ensure their proper medical use is, to my mind, the only reason that makes any sense.

That Schedule I drugs should include heroin and marijuana should tell you pretty much everything you need to know about the "war on drugs." I'm guessing that, as an attorney, you do not see the logic in victimless crimes. For the most part, neither do I.

Anyone who has sees the film "Methadonia" will learn how terrible drugs can be. They can destroy a person. What the viewer will also learn is that by combining methadone and xanax, an addict can obtain nearly the same high as they would through the use of heroin. Add one or two beers to the mix and, except for the part where you go to jail, you may as well be using heroin. The difference is that heroin is purchased on the street and is criminal, while you can get prescriptions for both methadone and xanax from the same doctor in the same visit. The doctor knows why you want the xanax. To "calm" your nerves. You don't have to be a heroin addict to obtain methadone. Just an addict. Any opiate will do. I live in the South and drug overdoses have doubled in the South, primarily as a result of drugs like methadone and xanax.

Controlling drugs for medical reasons is another matter entirely. Drugs can interact with each other within the body in very complex and sometimes dangerous ways. Some of them are deadly. As a general rule, if you take six or more drugs there is a high probability that at least two of them will have interactions. What complicates this even more is the individual's medical history. Older patients are most at risk. My beef is not with the doctors on this one. They, along with the pharmacists, are the experts and it is their job to know these things. What really bothers me is the direct to consumer marketing of drugs that have little or no effect on the general health of the population. You ask a person if they are sleepless or if they wake up with tired legs and then sell them a drug. That's insane. The next time you see a drug commercial on TV, listen very closely to the possible adverse symptoms. That should scare the hell out of anybody.

I agree with everything you said regarding George Bush's drive to power, inability to admit mistakes and demand for loyalty above all else.

But I also know this. Gonzales stands between the Congress and Rove. Rove stands between the Congress and Cheney and Bush. Gonzales is Rove's human shield. The sooner the Congress removes Gonzales the sooner they can go after Rove.