This story from the Business and Media Institute is featured at the top of The Drudge Report this morning. In it, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell says that “the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle.”

But what does that really mean? That legislation about net neutrality could be slipped into a bill about the Fairness Doctrine, or vice versa? This sort of legislative piggybacking happens all the time.

In the article, McDowell says, “the result might end with the government regulating content on the Web” and adds this question: “Will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

First: The net neutrality debate isn’t about content in the sense the Fairness Doctrine is about content; it’s more about how the bits and bytes of information travel through the Internet’s series of tubes.

Second: “Opposing views?” On blogs? Has McDowell ever been to a blog? Hey, Commissioner: Blogs allow readers to comment. In case you haven’t noticed, the public makes ample use of this function to express all sorts of opposing views.

Finally: Consider the notion of the government attempting to regulate free speech online. Yeah, that’ll work. YouTube can’t even regulate copyrighted videos, and that’s just one Web site out of … well, there’s a reason Google was named after the googolplex .

I can’t help but think that McDowell is rattling his sabre to some other purpose … whatever that might be. Either that, or he has zero fundamental understanding of the Internet.

Excuse me.

Pardon me.

*tap* *tap* (Is this thing on?)

Hey! Listen up! Yeah, you in the back, you too!

Good. Now that I have everyone’s attention, there’s a very important issue that needs to be discussed.

Space.

Take a look at the first listing for space over at Dictionary.com. It’s based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, and it lists 24 definitions for the word “space.”

None of them applies to the use of the word in the following way:

“How long have you been an expert in the SEO space?”

Or:

“We’re looking to launch a new initiative in the social networking space.”

People, people, listen. Yes, especially you there in the back!

There’s no escaping it: When you use “space” in that way you sound like a dork. A schmuck. A fool. An idiot. A nitwit. A jackass. A dolt. An imbecile. And a pretentious one to boot.

Is this getting through? You in the back, can you hear all this?

Okay, I take back what I said about Dictionary.com: Using “space” in that way is directly applicable to definition 4b: “the illusion of depth on a two-dimensional surface.”

Because when you use “space” that way, you’re trying to deliver the illusion that you have more intellectial depth than you do, that you’re some sort of expert that you’re not, that you have three-dimensional experience when, in fact, you’re a two-dimensional thinker.

So just stop it, okay?

No, really. Stop it. Right now.

Thanks. Sorry for the interruption.

I recently had to (yet again!) replace an iPod that crapped out on me. There they were: 160 gigs of music and movies and podcasts and games, unavailable behind the dreaded red X — which I’ve seen far more often this year than the dreaded Blue Screen of Death .

So when I received an email from Apple asking me to provide feedback on my Apple Store experience, I was happy to comply. Please to enjoy my response to their open-ended comments question:

(1) “Genius Bar” is SUCH a blitheringly snotty and pretentious bit of nomenclature, as is “Head Genius” on the business card of the gentleman who helped me. Unless you’re Einstein or Stephen Hawking, “genius” should NOT be used to refer to a customer service drone. Puh-leeeze.

(2) The ONLY reason I received service at all was because I threw a complete fit about having spent 4-1/2 hours in the car before arriving at the Apple store, only to be told I’d have to come back TWO DAYS LATER to handle a five-minute warranty replacement of my iPod (the third iPod I’ve had to replace in less than a year — how about making some more reliable products?)

(3) The Apple Store I was in would not have been as crowded if not for masses of people dealing with iPhone troubles (once again: how about making some more reliable products?)

I’ve been a PC guy forever, and every time I consider going over to Apple, I have some sort of issue with my iPod that takes me into the store, where I’m reminded that I’d rather deal with the hassles of Vista than the pretensions of Mac fanboys.

Not that all Mac users are pretentious fanboys. Hey, some of my best friends use Macs. But … well, you know what I mean.

Are you curling up with the Sunday paper today or clicking around on the paper’s Web site while watching the morning gabfests?

Probably the latter. More people are eschewing print for the electronic newsboy all the time, which is why every newsroom from the New York Times on down is laying off staff. Readers are getting angry, too: One News & Observer reader in Durham, North Carolina, is suing the paper for cutting staff.

If you find the ongoing saga of the incredible shrinking print media interesting, you’ll love the July 2 entry in this blog by Jessica DaSilva, an intern at the Tampa Tribune. Seems she got the shorts of a lot of print journalists all up in a bunch when she reported on Tribune Editor in Chief Janet Coats dropping, as Jessica described it, “the reality bomb.”

“People need to stop looking at TBO.com as an add on to The Tampa Tribune,” she said. “The truth is that The Tampa Tribune is an add on to TBO.”

There it is in a nutshell: The Web is no longer an adjunct to the print media, it’s the other way around.

Us new media types have seen this coming for years. Some savvy papers have understood this for a while. Others are just now figuring it out. Those who don’t get it soon will be the first to shut down the presses entirely.

As rough as the newspaper business has been in recent years, it’s going to get an awful lot tougher.

Takeaway for marketers: Doing any local advertising? Make sure you’re doing more than getting your ad in the paper.

It’s always been something of an article of marketing faith that “free” is the most powerful word there is. As marketers struggle to connect with potential customers, that golden rule of copy is changing.

Here’s one small example:

Logging on to my AOL account this morning after the long holiday weekend, I have 763 emails, consisting mostly of newsletters to which I’ve subscribed and offers to which I’ve ostensibly opted in. (For years this AOL account has served as my main dumping ground anytime I’m asked for an email address for anything.)

The word “free” appears in the subject lines of 16 emails, promising me free 4th of July e-cards, a free prescription drug savings card, coupons and free samples and, of course, free shipping.

Meanwhile, the word “your” appears in 87 subject lines, professing concern for my earnings, my credit card debt, my home, my family, my car insurance, my identity, my teeth and my toilet bowl, among other things.

That “your” is being used more than five times as often as “free” to catch precious attention makes perfect sense. Cynicism rules, so most people understand that “free” usually isn’t, not by a longshot.

Ah, but “your” — that’s a word that’s personal, not corporate. It’s a word that implies connection and direct one-to-one communication. It’s a sign that the marketer is paying attention not just to the message, but to the mindset of the person receiving the message.

I suppose a special acknowledgment to Sears and Rachael Ray is necessary, since they managed to use the phrase “your free” in their subject lines (“your free Sears gift card” and “your free Rachael Ray cookware package”), thus scoring a rare daily double in my inbox.

Takeaway for marketers: Smart marketing communications means a lot more than arbitrarily slapping “your” into a subject line. Think about the full range of your communications and how you’re speaking to your customers and potential customers.