Hi. My name's Jesse. See that smiling face? That's me, after being electronically mangled by Collegian equipment. Are you ready? Today we're going to play "Analyze the Media," and we're going to start close to home.

I am a Collegian columnist, one of eight this semester. I am now a member of the media. I have a lot of freedom -- I don't have to pretend to be objective, like this paper's reporters, and I don't have to be cautious like its editorial writers. I can basically say whatever the hell I want to, and it will get printed.

Now think about that. Maybe you will go all semester and never read my columns. Maybe you'll stop reading this one right now, or in the next sentence. But I guarantee that somebody, and probably several people, on this campus will read what I write, just because it is in the newspaper (and because they're trying to figure out what I'm talking about). Does that bother you?

Well, what if I put it this way: I am a liberal, a Democrat, a believer in legal abortion, gay rights, affirmative action and moderate socialism. I am an agnostic, and distrust all organized religions. I am a pacifist. I like the American League better than the National League. I hate Phil Collins and I think David Lynch is a genius. Now does it bother you?

Maybe not. But at least you know where I'm coming from. You could spend all semester guessing the biases of most columnists we get around here, but believe me, they all have them.

In any case, the editors of this paper have decided to give me 20 or so inches of their newsprint every two weeks. Nice of them, yes? Especially when you consider what an advertiser would have to pay for the same space: roughly $130. I get it free.

Why? Hard to say. I turned in an application, a handful of people read it, and someone decided I had the potential to interest, entertain or educate the Penn State public.

How did they reach that decision? Popular University lore would say the conspiring liberals of the Collegian's Board of Editors analyzed my political views and found I conformed suitably to the party line. That's not entirely true, but there's probably more to it than Collegian editors would care to admit.

As a former opinions editor myself, I know that it is natural, given two "otherwise equal" applicants, to select the one more in tune with your own views. I'm not at all sure there's anything wrong with that. Political agendas are about the only things that keep all media organizations from turning into USA Today. Still, it is something for an innocent reader like yourself to keep in mind.

So much for the Collegian's intentions. What about mine? Why am I doing this? Part of it must be an ego thing, right? Obviously, I must think my views and my words are important enough to be read by 20,000 people every two weeks. Unless I'm blessed with exceptional insight (I'm not, if you were wondering), that makes me something of a patronizing bastard.

So you, as a reader, have a lot of work to do if you really want to cut through the bullshit and get anything of substance out of my columns or anything else in the paper. And that raises the next question: what are you bringing to this?

I mean, I might be a jerk, but at least I've spent some time considering my opinions and thoughts before I type them into the word processor. What about you? Our time together every two weeks is very special to me -- are you going to just skim my columns, snort derisively and turn to the comics? Or will you take some time to think about what I've written, and evaluate it carefully?

The thing is, everyone pretends to be cynical about the press and televison, but almost nobody asks the questions that need to be asked. Most people's consideration of media content doesn't usually go beyond "That's stupid," or "Cool." That's a dangerous thing, especially right now. The media is perhaps more important since Jan. 16 than it has ever been before.

So what, finally, is my point? Just this: some of you will disagree with what I write this semester. That's fine. But if you do, will you think carefully about why you disagree? Will you use logic and reason instead of knee-jerk prejudice? And will you apply the same critical standards to everything you read and hear?

It's a lot of work, I know -- even after three years of communications theory courses, I still find myself glassy-eyed in front of the TV or skimming newspaper stories without paying much attention. All I can say is that I try. Do you?