I see MacWorld has reviewed the Flip Video camera. Great piece of hardware and very Mac-like. My wife uses hers constantly now that we have temporarily taken custody of our seven-month-old granddaughter Mattie. This sucker is amazing. Ease of use is unbelievable. There's literally nothing to it.

The only thing the reviewer didn't comment on is that the Flip Video has a zoom lens feature as well. This sucker's well worth the price.

Wow. Shocking and sad news today. Tim Russert of NBC News, the long-time host of Meet the Press, collapsed and died at work today. He was 58.

I never met him. I didn't always like his work but I always admired it.

He was five years younger than me.

That's sad and scary and more other things than I really have time or ability to sort out.

Wow.

I'm no big fan of the Republican Right, George W. Bush and John McCain (aka Bush III). And I am a big fan of Keith Olbermann's nightly news show on MSNBC, "Countdown." But sometimes, Keith goes too far even for my taste.

First, while it's obviously true that McCain is a flip-flopper to end all flip-floppers, making John Kerry look like a steady Ship of State, not everything he says that seems to contradict a previous position is either a flip-flop or necessarily even a real shift. Case in point is the recent attacks on McCain's statement a couple of years ago about Hammas being "part of the new reality of the Middle East" contrasted with his attacks on Sen. Barack Obama's stance that he would be willing, under some circumstances, to talk with Hammas leaders. McCain did not say he would be willing to sit down and talk with Hamas; he said they were a new force that would have to be reckoned with "one way or another." He could well mean attacks as far as that goes. So it's unfair of Keith to hammer McCain for this inconsistency; it's really only partly inconsistent. And, as McCain often says, if the facts on the ground change, you have to be willing to change your opinion.

Second, whle it was patently ridiculous for President Bush to say in all seriousness (and as it turned out in all untruthfulness as well) that he gave up golf fairly early in his unprovoked war on Iraq, out of concern that the widows and mothers of servicemen being killed in Iraq might find his playing golf unseemly, that shouldn't have provoked the nasty attack Olbermann launched one night last week. He showed a series of clips in which Bush was engaging in various bits of playful behavior. And the question he asked, essentially, was, "Is it OK then for the President to do this...or this ...or this... in time of war?" And while I got his point, I think it was way over the top.

Keith, your special comments are powerful and insightful and right on. You don't need to stoop to silly and off-target attacks to make your point to the Left. We're capable of thinking these things through.

I've just become aware of Current TV, a combination of a Web site and a cable network that seems to me to have trapped some interesting ideas. I'm not sure it's a viable concept in the long term but it addresses convergence of media from the other side of the aisle and is quite interesting.

I spent a couple of hours watching Current TV on cable tonight. While it has a distinctly youthful flare, it has some content that even I found interesting: a piece on the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays, e.g., was a pretty decent investigative report as was a segment on meth problems. Some of it is too "young" or over the top but a good bit of it is watchable.

I am intrigued, too, by how they try to tie the Web site and the TV network together. For example, while you're watching a show you can go to the site and record a video comment. If you make a comment they think is well done, it gets shown on the network.This is a clear differentiator. Very interesting.

Their idea of a VCAM (Viewer Created Advertising Message) where their sponsors invite viewers to create and submit ads that pay$1k if they're aired and up to $60k if the advertiser uses the ad outside current TV, is particularly interesting to me. I think this bears a bit more investigating.

According to press reports, my favorite candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, will not be allowed to participate in Saturday's debate sponsored by ABC News.

As it turns out, only four Democrats -- Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards and former Gov. Bill Richardson -- will appear on that stage. This effectively mandates that Democratic voters will not be allowed to hear the views of Kucinich or of Mike Gravel. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropped out of the race after Iowa, saving ABC the embarrassment of having to bar them from this debate as well.

The Kucinich campaign immediately filed an emergency petition with the FCC charging ABC was violating its fundamental requirement to operate in the public interest. After pointing out that Kucinich had been effectively choked out of Iowa by that state's Democratic Party machine and that he has considerable resources on the ground and support in New Hampshire, the complaint went on: "In addition, Complainant Kucinich has been the winner in national online polls conducted by Democracy for America (receiving almost 50,000 votes while the closest competitor only received 38,000), Virginia State Democratic Party (receiving 30% of the Democratic vote while the closest competitor received 27%), Independent Voters (75% of the Democratic vote out of 80,000 online voters), as well as polls by Progressive Democrats of America and the Nation. In an ABC News poll, Complainant Kucinich received the most support from 42,487 voters (garnering 35% of the vote to 22% for the next closest candidate) who were asked who won the Democratic presidential primary debate on August 19, 2007."

ABC says it established cutoff criteria for the debate to enable the conversation to become more focused and allow candidates more time to discuss issues more deeply. Their criterion was that a candidate had to end up in the top 4 in Iowa, pull 5% of the vote in Iowa, or poll at 5% in the most recent of one or more of four national polls. I find those critera far too narrow, but ABC News said that all candidates were made aware of these criteria well in advance and nobody objected. If that's true -- and with the mainstream media poisoning the well against any candidate they don't understand or like, that's not cleaer -- then Dennis and his team have little room to complain.

If, on the other hand, as I suspect, ABC News did not get candidate buy-in on this unique and unprecedented set of criteria to qualify a candidate for inclusion in a partisan debate on the issues, then it has committed a grievous error. No media outlet should be able to tell members of a given political party which of its candidates should be able to be heard before a nominee has been chosen. Such action might find some justification in the General Election but not during primary season.

UPDATE

Today's (Monday, 12/17) newspapers carried a story out of LA that said, "Dozens of striking writers are negotiating with venture capitalists to set up new companies that would bypass the Hollywood studio system and reach consumers directly with video entertainment on the Web."

I'm finding myself increasingly intrigued by and sucked into the so-called "Digital Convergence" technology trend. Not that the trend is new but it seems to me to be gathering steam on a lot of different fronts, prodded by a number of different initiatives.

One current development I think could have a tremendous impact on the acceleration of the video-over-Internet as a replacement (in some part at least) for broadcast TV is the current writers' strike. The media companies that are resisting paying the deserving writers anything for their contribution to the success of the digital distribution of their wares may find themselves looking at the rear end of a rapidly vanishing bus if they keep up their greedy ways.

I can envision a number of new Internetworks coming together and hiring these writers to produce original content for which they are handsomely rewarded. Then, when the broadcast TV industry finally comes to its senses and does the right thing by the writers, the latter won't really care to work for the slave wages and under the exploitative conditions they have been content with for far too long.

I'm surprised, as I reflect on it, that Net video hasn't already supplanted even more of broadcast TV, given its tremendous advantages:

• Everything is or can be on demand.
• Length of shows is content-driven rather than time-slot driven.
• Interactivity comes along almost for free.
• The ability to create successful narrow vertical networks that build around and enhance community is almost unfettered.
• "Subscription" models can guarantee revenue levels.

I'm sure I'm overlooking dozens more. This is a space that is set to explode in the next six months and if the writers' strike continues, I think it accelerates the process enormously.

Ever since former Vice-President Al Gore -- the man who used to be the next President of the United States until the GOP flat-out stole the election -- won the Nobel Peace Prize, the media has been clamoring for him to enter the presidential lottery once again.

Not one person of repute from Gore's family or circle of friends and not one knowledgeable Democratic Party leader has seriously suggested Gore might make another run at the White House. Gore, for his part, has consistently denied any interest in running or holding the office. Yet every time you hear Gore's name mentioned these days, the media focus is on the "Will he or won't he?" question rather on the "Look what he's done and is doing" aspect of this great man's life.

Until and unless Gore announces his plans to run for the White House, it is dishonest and petty for the media to continue to downplay his power, popularity and vision on the environment so they can speculate about something about which their ignorance knows no bounds.

Former Vice-President of the United States. Elected President by the people, denied the office by the GOP and the Supreme Court. Nobel Peace Prize winner. Not to mention years and years of public service in the Congress. Isn't that enough for one man's life?

Yeesh.

I'm a big fan of Keith Olbermann. I like his nightly news show, "Countdown" on MSNBC a lot. He is one of the best sports reporters and commentators in my considerable memory.

But he has got to get over his obsession with Bill O'Reilly. I am not sure but I don't think Keith's had a show in a couple of weeks in which the man he calls "Bill Orally" hasn't played a prominent role. The two men are bitter competitors. Or at least they appear to be. Each bashes the other on his show. And each thereby gives his competitor publicity and exposure he might not otherwise get.

I don't like O'Reilly. I don't like the network he appears on (Fox Noise, as Keith calls it). I think the right-wing screed he and his bosses and colleagues spew daily is a blight that explains in some large measure why our country is what it is today: angry, distrusted, violent and unpleasant in many, many ways.

But I don't see how it serves Keith to continue to attack O'Reilly other than the fact that the conservative radio-TV guy does give Olbermann a chance to utter some of his better-written lines.

I've resolved to fast forward through Keith's segments on O'Reilly. I wish he'd back way off on the attacks. Not stop them altogether, mind you. O'Reilly is a truly mean-spirited egomaniac and occasionally he does something so contemptible it ought to draw fiery commentary from the likes of Keith. But incessantly beating that horse? Counter-productive, Mr. Olbermann. Get over it.

The folks at Viacom must be stupid.

Get this. (Detail here.)

Chris Knight, an independent filmmaker in North Carolina, makes a video of himself. He slaps it up on YouTube. Viacom likes it, so they grab it, lay some humorous commentary over it and air it on their show "WebJunk 2.0". Knight, flattered, captures the video on his DVR, converts its format and posts it back on YouTube.

Viacom sues Knight for copyright infringement.

WTF?

As it happens, given the way the government completely fails to understand the notion of "intellectual property", Viacom is legally right here. Because they added something to his clip, their work is not derivative, it's fair use. but given that all Knight did was post the unedited, uncommented Viacom piece, he's in violation of the law.

That's moral garbage.

In the world of tort law, there is a notion of contributory negligence. If you and I have an accident, a jury can decide it was 20% my fault and 80% yours and award damages accordingly. Copyright law needs the same sort of new thinking in an era of easily editable digital media. Without Knight's original work, Viacom has no product on which it can claim a right that Knight can infringe. Call it even. Shake hands. Go home.

Media Conglomerates Suck!

In a move that I think is about as dumb as any I've heard the company make, Google says it plans to open its news to restricted commentary. As John Murrell points out in today's edition of Good Morning Silicon Valley, this decision will open Google up to more legal problems than it has any apparent clue about. I'm blown away that their attorneys are allowing this.

Web sites that publish news and commentary from others are generally considered exempt from laws governing things like libel and copyright violation because they are viewed as "common carriers." Just as the phone company can't be held responsible for what you say or transmit over its wires, the theory goes, so Web sites can't be held accountable for information published on them by people other than the owner-publisher. Even that exception is pretty limited.

But if a site begins to monitor, evaluate and discriminate about publishing news commentary, it assumes the role of publisher. And in that role, it may well find itself liable for content that would otherwise not come under legal protection.

There are other reasons this is stupid and Murrell covers several of them. I hope Google re-thinks this policy that it describes as experimental.