The saddest part for me is that I'd really like to muster some outrage... but it all seems to obvious that I just can't. It all just kind of makes me want to go take a nap.

Our local "storm alert weather" scares the bejeezus out of my mom every time a 'supercell' is approaching her area.

The murder stories, consumer 'safety' warnings, accident footage and related mayhem are designed to raise anxiety levels so viewers will buy something to calm down.

Of course, it doesn't work, and the cycle begins anew. Don't even get me started on network and cable news.

I was talking to an associate who was amazed that my wife and I don't own a TV.

"I wish I could give it up - I'm hooked" he said, wistfully...

I can't understand how an intelligent person can even sit through a half-hour of local news. Hmmm, maybe we're on to something here...

Here the news is a preview to the weather, the weather, more weather, the drought, a weather recap, some local crime news, the weather, local government news and the weather.

When I was in college, I interned at a state official's office as a press aide. The chief of staff was more visionary than I realized at the time. Not only did he set me to work writing news releases that highlighted the public official's role in all sorts of worthy activities, he also taught me how to videotape the public official and add a voiceover. And we always signed off saying something like, "And this is (name) at the (state) news service!" Then we'd fedex the tapes to every TV station in the state.

News stations around the state, even those in the state capital, routinely used these tapes and never mentioned that they came from the public official. Oh, btw, this was all paid for with state tax money.

That was in 1981. I should've stayed in the fake news biz!

Only an idiot would watch TV in this country and expect to get truthful news broadcasting. I stopped paying attention to TV at least ten years ago.

First of all, Serai1. You used to be able to trust TV news. If anything, they were quicker and smarter than newspapers - which, if you didn't know, have even more corrupt connections to the rich and powerful than TV ever did.

What happened is that TV news went from being an obligation to serve the public to a profit center. Morality disappeared, to be replaced by desire for ratings. The hunger for ratings became so great that the station owners (who increasingly are megacorporations) ignored their own news directors.

They put their faith in "consultants" who pushed flashy graphics, characterless Barbie-and-Ken reporters and ambulance chasing instead of journalism. Why examine corruption in city council when you can show bloody car crashes and black (ALWAYS black) criminals doing a perp walk?

It's been visible over the last thirty years, if you bothered to actually watch what TV stations aired. (I wouldn't expect someone as ignorant and uncaring as Salon's assigned TV columnist to do so, but even civilians should surely have seen it happening before their eyes.)

And Mr. Manjoo, you caught one of the symptoms, but didn't examine all its aspects. It sure is easy to throw VNR's up, but there's more to it. By essentially being whores for all kinds of business, the reporters are assured of contacts with those businesses. Reporters measure their worth, power and earning ability by the number and importance of their contacts - not values as vague or as "gay" as truth, clarity or honesty.

It's more than corruption and greed. The end result is local news that no adult with self-respect or intelligence should watch. What continues to astonish me (even though I believe H. L. Mencken's estimation of American taste) is that people continue to watch in growing numbers. They'd be better off watching South Park instead.

Tivo and set-top boxes will be used as weapons against us, measuring eyeballs and then correlating those metrics with sales whenever these ads run. They'll get better at it. More marketers will start doing it. And "news" organizations will use this free, high quality (in a sense) content to increase their bottom lines.

Wal-Mart and Publix actually had their advertising for free and low cost prescriptions delivered by news anchors. Sure, it's a public service and people are going to want to know, but it's also a loss leader and a marketing tactic.

The false authority these pieces bring isn't their main benefit, although it is a benefit. As Tivo, the internet, and electronic mail and billing (how many people still check snail mail every day?) chip away at the interruption based advertising that companies have relied on for over 100 years, companies that are too lazy or unimaginative or cheap to come up with ways to get permission based advertising to work for them will basically steal permission.

You gave them permission to show you the news. They showed you an ad instead, without telling you it was an ad, and for that reason you didn't fast forward or go to the bathroom or get a snack. You stayed and watched. The message was delivered. And the chances that you will buy something as a result of receiving that message are exponentially higher than they would be if you had watched a 60 second commercial.

Anyway, that pretty much answers my question about how a local TV station can afford to have 75 reporters, most of which you only see one time.

Was looking forward to buying a copy of your new book.

However, I see that it is not available in Kindle format? WTF!!!

I guess I'll just wait until my local library gets a copy.

I donated my TV to Goodwill ten years ago and haven't looked back. Now when I'm exposed to TV at an airport or at a friend's home it is like when I, an ex-smoker, am exposed to cigarette smoke: I'm amazed at how much it stinks.

I drive a Metro Transit Route 36 in Seattle that stops at Amazon.com headquarters. I transport dozens of Amazon employees daily. Not one of them carries a Kindle. Many of them carry traditional reading material.