I think the needs of people are becoming more clearly defined: (i) satellite radio (ii) multi-channel digital TV with a la carte pricing, and (iii) specialized blogs.

As I have said here before, Big Media has adopted a strategy to sell fashion. This strategy is no longer acceptable to people who are more interested in protecting and building their wealth. Fashion, as you know, is here today and gone tomorrow.

So people today want (i) to know "how to" survive and prosper in a changing world, and (ii) be entertained, when they get a chance to take a break from the real world.

Yes, fashion can be entertaining, but for some reason Big Media thinks they can make reality news entertaining, and they cannot. At least they should not try. People today are saying they want media to filter the news, not spin it around some fleeting notion.

People today have learned to compartmentalize reality from entertainment. And when they see it together they grow weary or discontented. They suspect a hidden agenda, and become skeptical.

So media today must be honest, or it is doomed to fail.

Here are a couple examples of bad media today.

The Dow Jones & Company " normally a terrific operator of the Wall Street Journal and Barron's " made a decision recently to buy the electronic publisher MarketWatch. Years ago, I used to think highly of that publication. Today, I like the timeliness of its reporting, but the information provided is so bad I don't know whether to call it misinformation or disinformation. Clearly the latter term infers deliberate deception. As I say, I haven't yet decided which is which, but I do not like what I see.

Here is the story they published on the CPI news release this morning. Note the emotional spin in the words "1949" and "plunge".

---

---

Another case of Big Media hitting my desk today that I find laughable is the front page of the Toronto Star business section. You would assume that after 100 years of publishing the country's biggest newspaper (by circulation it's about 1 million/day) you'd think the publisher would "get it". But apparently they don't.

Readers of the business section subscribe based on their need for information pertaining to reality. You'd think that's obvious. But today, precisely 50 pct of the front page is a lead story about the Canadian federal political campaign now underway. The story is headlined "Branding: what wheels would it take to roll to a victory".

In other words, what fashion are you looking for today? If media can be rated "The good; the bad; and the ugly," this one was definitely Ugly.

Directly underneath the headline are head-shot photos of the Party Leaders, with name followed by Automobile. Not their automobile " just something that the "Business Reporter" and editors decided would be good for the main story of the day. Such rubbish.

So under Paul Martin (Liberal) there is "Volkswagen...Reliable with strengths. Not everyone wants one. We've known it over time, are still affectionate."

Under Stephen Harper (Conservative) there is "GMC Yukon... Appeals to rural folks, a guilty pleasure for the middle class, but will soon be available as a hybrid."

Under Jack Layton (Socialist NDP) there is "Toyota Prius... Trendy in a New Age way, it's popular and gets the job done but lacks a huge following."

And under Gilles Duceppe (Quebec Separatist BQ) there is "Peugeot... Popular only among a segment of the population and inspired by a different mind-set."

The article was totally given to a banal discussion, like for instance a quote regarding branding, "If you see a Woody Allen movie, you know it will be be quirky."

I think by know you know where I am coming from. If I wanted to read such twaddle, I would have gone immediately to a section the newspaper published today on "Fashion", or maybe "Leisure" or possibly the filler they put into "TV Listings".

When do you think Big Media will "get it"? When all media is on the Web and subscribers have 10 million channels to select from?