I welcome the passage of the “iTune’s Law” in France. The measure would compel Apple Computer to open its iPods to competing music formats. It’s a step in the right direction (even though Apple may react by pulling out of the French market).

Music players should either allow the use of all file formats, or all online music stores should sell their tracks in the same format. Falling short of those goals hurts both consumers and the industry. It’s ridiculous that, as an iPod user, I can’t buy songs from Artist A on-line because his record label made a deal with Sony, not Apple. If I preferred Sony’s music store selection, but would rather own an iPod for its simplicity, I’d be rightfully miffed.

Let’s put this in the context of the long-gone good-ol’ days. Would it have made sense if a CD I bought at Brick-And-Mortar Tunes ‘R Us could only play on certain, specially equipped stereos? I don’t think so.

And for those who say, Why don’t you just convert everything to mp3? I do. Still, that puts an unnecessary burden on the consumer. Remember him? He’s the one you want buying your products.

If on-line distribution is the model of the future (and it is), let’s settle on a good, high-quality format, knock off the proprietary bullshit and get on with enjoying the music.

“Mainstream media,” or the “MSM” for shorthand, falls into the retronym category. Once, we had only the media, which morphed into the “mass media” as niche mediums multiplied. Then, the niche mediums felt the need for a weighty counterbalance and the “MSM,” in all its apparent wickedness, was born.

I’m also guilty of using the term on occasion, but it gets worn out quickly. Let’s take a closer, albeit reasoned, look.

From Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.:

Mainstream, n., adj., a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence.

Media, n., a medium of cultivation, conveyance or expression.

Apply the former to the latter, and a combined definition sounds something like: a prevailing method of expression. By the book, it is the mode in which the largest percentage of the population experiences news and events. That’s a start, but that definition ranges far from what those using the term often mean. It disparages, and its beauty lies in the fact that it can disparage from right or left of the political spectrum.

On the left, it connotes rebelliousness. Liberal users of the word seem to link the MSM with the spectre of The Man. See? I’m just this little blogger poking a stick in the eye of the behemoth establishment machine.

On the right, it connotes strict contempt. Conservative users tend to link the MSM to elitist rhetoric as in, You won’t read this in the MSM. The MSM covers up good news from Iraq; The MSM treacherously exposes state secrets in the war on terrorism; et al.

Both sides employ MSM to their own reactionary ends. It’s a useful straw dog. While its utility makes it an appealing term, it paradoxically empties it of its original useful meaning. The term instead conveys a point its user desperately wants to make: I’m on your side. And, if I’m on your side, the corollary must be true: You’re on my side. It acts as a rhetorical in-joke.

Remember that whenever a speaker or writer lazily throws out the term or its too-cool-for-school acronym. Their true meaning likely goes something like this: I’ve picked my side, have you?

Remember also that dividing is a shortcut to conquering.