I'm sick of the political ads, yes, but only because they are wasteful, tiresome and purposefully misleading. But they can be entertaining with their creative negativity.

What is distressing is the judicial campaigns. Oh my, it's like watching civilization flushed down the toilet.

Lately, it's the ones interviewing random people about what we all need, tough on crime. Apparently, there's one branch of government not affected by the economic downturn and is expecting an endless budget. CUT THEIR SALARIES, I say.

Next up are the ones that exploit a single victim of a crime. Guess what? It's not hard finding someone upset with the justice system. It makes me feel sorry for that prosecutor.

And then there's the biggest fraud: The one targeting Denise Langford Morris for being SOFT ON CRIME. Oh my, my. Guess what - lots of people get probation for crimes. But most disheartening is that they refer to Langford Morris letting "a rapper" go after a second gun possession incident. They twice or thrice refer to "a rapper," but this is rapper is Oakland County's own Eminem. Why not say it? Why hide? What's the problem? Call it what it is.

Again, it's just shameful that this is how the laws in our state are shaped, by judges who rely on such tactics to keep their high-paying jobs.

My assessment of Langford Morris after seeing her in action? She's made some tough choices. Toughest one was giving a prison sentence to a 16 year old who had killed her baby immediately after giving birth in a hospital bathroom. Did she not know she was pregnant? Did she panic? Did she intend to kill the baby?

The jury debated for days and finally convicted of second-degree murder. The judge shocked everyone with a small sentence, something like 2 years to 10 years with credit for time served on a tether on house arrest. Everyone complained. She shouldn't have gone to prison; she should have gotten a longer term. Someone called it an illegal sentence, due to the time served clause.

Thing is, I don't recall it being appealed because the appellate decision could have come down a number of ways. The girl served a couple years in prison, and then was paroled - but not at her first opportunity.

The judge made a decision that no one was happy with and everyone learned to live with it. Seems like a good judge to me. Also, she can take forever deciding something as she weighs the variety of issues. That sounds like Supreme Court material to me, too.

According to a biting reaction by media critic Jeff Jarvis on Rupert Murdock's decision to go with the pay wall around some of his UK properties, the answer is NO. And I don't see how excluding a large part of the population — those of us who are used to getting our online news the easiest way possible, without a credit card — will help grow an audience, benefit advertisers and actually make money.
Isn't the point of the Web to expand outward, reaching people you could have never reached before? Doesn't sound like the Times and Sunday Times is seeking to do that.
If the proper way forward for this business is to generate revenue directly from the users, then it appears news will be more narrowly focused and reach a small but dedicated audience.
It is not reaching the masses, and if advertising is no longer a part of the news economy, then the masses need not be bothered.
However, I don't see the news economy changing the much. The medium will change, though. Newsreaders will still seek out what interests them and they will do so for a minimal cost — instead of a dimes-a-day subscription, they'll pay for general internet or mobile access — and advertisers will continue to crave them.
And the best news content will generate the greatest interest and hence the strongest advertising dollar.
TV commercials are almost pointless as I DVR nearly everything, even pausing sporting events, so I can skip over the ads. (I do like some movie previews on the big TV screen, much better than small laptop screen). Radio ads have long been ignored in my car, first by the button and variety, then by CDs and iPod, and now with satellite radio and its plethora of channels, mostly commercial free.
I get the radio for free with the car for now, but will I renew for a little bit a month. I'd pay for radio I think, because of the content, but I may not because I'm not in the car that much and we also have a DVD player. So it's unlikely I would pay for that.
I do not see myself offering up to pay for news, though, because it'll be somewhere for free or else it's not that important to me.
I mean, it's a paywall. That's what it's called. That sounds like a bad business model, keeping people out.
Like the inheritance tax becoming the death tax, Murdock should rename it.
Let's see....Exclusive club? Maybe, but I don't see mass readership. Restricted site? That'll keep em away. Going alone? Hmmm, sounds like a blogger. I look forward to seeing some numbers down the road.