It was not an uncommon occurrence. It was a little after midnight in Lynwood, Calif. and a prisoner was being released from a 45-day sentence.

But she wasn't dressed in her prison-issue garb. She wasn't looking for the local bus. And she certainly wasn't walking alone into the night.

This prisoner sauntered out of prison doors as if on a red carpet in tight, dark jeans, high heels and a cropped gray button-up. Bystanders cheered, cameramen converged on her waiting SUV and she just smiled and blew them all a kiss.

Paris was out of jail and the media was there to document it.

But the real story happened the next morning.

MSNBC Morning Joe co-anchor Mika Brzezinski refused to read the day's lead story featuring Hilton's release, opting instead to attempt to light the prompt on fire, crumbling it and then shredding it in a nearby paper shredder.

"I'm about to snap," she told her co-anchor, over being told to read the Hilton story before one about a Republican senator calling for the troops' withdrawal from Iraq. "I'm not doing it, I'm not doing the story," she asserted. "I just don't believe in covering that story, especially when we have a day like today."

(Click here to see for yourself.)

The story has traveled to Ireland, Australia and even parts of sub-Saharan Africa. The Associated Press reports Brzezinski's gotten more than a thousand e-mails, was named "woman of the week" by a British Web site and has been invited to address a media symposium in Scotland. Commentators are going as far to dub this "the journalistic shot heard around the world."

Was this little-known news anchor taking a stand? Looking for publicity? Or having a psychotic break on national TV?

Her motivations don't matter anymore (though she has been given a regular hour to anchor the news each morning). More importantly, the act has gotten people talking about the "junk food" news diet and the effect it's having on the state of information.

Some news editors and producers are wringing their hands in confusion.

According to the Associated Press, the Hilton story is the "fourth most clicked-upon one of the year, after the Iraq war, the death of Anna Nicole Smith and the Virginia Tech shootings." So should newspapers keep giving the people what they want? Or feature the less "clicked-upon" stories about the state of politics, economics and international relations?

What would you as Collegian reader being attracted to read: An article about football players' favorite nightspots or the University Board of Trustees' budget plan?

The easy answer is a healthy combination of both -- a little junk food on Anna's baby daddy and a helping of leafy greens on the upcoming primaries.

But how do you get the right combination of both? You react. You write a letter. You suggest a story. You participate.

You don't have to resort to a cigarette lighter and a paper shredder. E-mail works just fine.

Happy Blogiversary!

It's been 10 years since the birth of the weblog -- cutely nicknamed blog -- and its effects have been far reaching. It has directed the tide of public opinion, given everyman a place to air their opinion -- be it as complex as the Darfur conflict or as basic as high school cafeteria food -- and it has spawned, what Wikipedia guesses to be, about 71 million offspring.

The blogplosion has positive consequences, especially with fewer and fewer people under 30 reading daily newspapers. The New York Times reported Monday that yet another study (this one spearheaded by Harvard) has revealed newspaper readership by the under-30 sect is still at an all-time low. Thomas Patterson, a professor of government and the press at Harvard who conducted the survey, said these people are not adopting the "news habit" -- or the daily routine of checking the local paper or TV news station that their parents acquired.

Some argue that the proliferation and popularity of blogs offset this disturbing trend. In 2007, Gartner, information and technology research and advisory firm in Connecticut, estimates the 100 million writers will settle down on the blogosphere, commenting on everything from the current political administration to one's love for the slinky.

It's important to remember that not all blogs are as credible as a daily newspaper; some being more comparable to the homeless man ranting about the dangers of pot roast. Newspapers, who fear libel suits, corrections and loss of credibility, maintain the mantra: "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." In the shadier, online realm, attribution may fall by the wayside and rumors can flourish. Meanwhile, many mainstream journalists, disciplined in the school of fact checking, write their own blogs -- well over 300, according to the J-blog list on CyberJournalist.net. But with legal issues, like defamation of character, confidentiality and propriety, still on legal quicksand in the blogoverse, it's clear that blogs are no substitute for accurate and credible news reporting.

But don't miss out on the blogoday! Celebrate, have some cake and meet a new blog.

Here are some of our favorites:

For news and cultural: http://headbutler.com

For pop culture: perezhilton.com and tmz.com

For hippiest Philly latest: www.philebrity.com

For street fashion: thesartorialist.com

For sports humor: deadspin.com and the700level.com

For music tidbits: tinymixtapes.com and stereogum.com

For entertaining conversation: overheardinnewyork.com

For baseball fan fiction: dugout.progressiveboink.com

For TV news: tvsquad.com

For other people's secrets: postsecret.blogspot.com

And of course, check out The Collegian's Get a Nightlife; Snap, Crackle, Pop; Travis' Travels and It's News To Me.

In this case, the Internet certainly did not kill the literary star.

The Boy Who Lived survived something even tougher than an Unforgivable Curse to become the fastest-selling book in history -- totaling more than 11 million in the United States, Britain and Germany in 24 hours.

The week before the highly anticipated "midnight magic" began at 12:01 a.m. on July 21 spoilers on the Internet, scanned versions of the novel's pages and early book reviews by two U.S. newspapers revealed the book's heavily guarded contents and plagued fans.

The book companies tackled the leaks with the one of the oldest strategies in the book: Deny, deny, deny.

On July 17, The New York Times reported that Lisa Holton, president of Scholastic's trade and book fairs division, said the company was asking various Web site hosts to take the photos down. "We're not confirming if anything is real," she said. "But in the spirit of getting to midnight magic without a lot of hoo-ha, can you just take some of this stuff down."

The company's lawyers were also pursuing the identity of the person who posted the pictures, the Times said.

It's impressive, first of all, that these individuals even got their hands on an early copy of the seventh installment -- something rarer than unicorn blood.

Britain's The Guardian Unlimited said ahead of the launch, the books were kept in guarded warehouses surrounded by barbed wire and extra guards and delivered in vans tracked by satellites. Bloomsbury, the publisher who owns the English language rights outside the US, said only one person had read the entire manuscript. J.K. herself made an impassioned plea on her Web site against the "sad individuals who get their kicks from ruining other people's fun. I want the readers who have, in many instances, grown up with Harry to embark on the last adventure they will share with him without knowing where they are going."

But the Potter fans I spoke to weren't at all shocked by early releases. The consensus seemed to be that there would always be someone who could find a way to get the information into cyberspace. "Curiosity is human nature," was a common refrain. "Everyone wants to be the first to know -- we have been waiting 10 years."

The real affront, I believe, wasn't these Internet wizards, but The New York Times and its decision to review the book in its July 19 newspaper. Other media outlets covered the controversy and said The Times received hundreds of complaints that same day.

As a member of the media, I was personally attacked by a pair of die-hard Muggles, who were disgusted that as a loyal reader since 1997, I would defend a newspaper that almost dimmed the magic. In their minds, it was as bad as admitting that I liked Rita Skeeter or respected the PR-machine, The Daily Prophet.

Secrecy is not a function of the media, I replied. Our job is make as much information as possible available to the public and let them decide what and what not to consume. No one is forcing anyone's eyes open on the spoiler Web site while a Howler screams the text out loud. If someone doesn't have enough self-control to wait until 12:01 a.m. and then blames the media for putting the information out there, I would say they were as stupid as a flobberworm.

I especially can't blame The Times because their prestige or influence had nothing to do with the early procurement of the novel. They walked into a New York bookstore that happened to be disobeying the publisher's embargo and purchased the book themselves. Any member of the public could have done it. There was no special treatment here.

The review didn't tell readers anything a well-informed fan didn't already know. It was common knowledge the book was the darkest of the seven-part series, that people close to Harry died and that there would be a final battle greater than any before.

Don't blame newspapers for fulfilling their role. If you don't want to know, avoid Wikipedia and your loud-mouth friends. Skip the Times review until after your marathon read.

The world of ever-shifting media corporations, buyouts are more dramatic than a daily soap opera.

Million-dollar bids are made over mimosas and French toast, and corporations change hands faster than a newspaper with declining circulation.

There's sex, intrigue and illegitimate heirs. It's the media moguls and the restless. It's as the newpaper turns. It's the days of our media.

Just take at look at the key players:

Rupert Murdoch:
Owns: Supermarket tabloid Star, the majority of Australia, Bill O'Reilly
Murdoch has more money than God and laughs so hard he cries whenever someone calls Howard Stern "the king of all media." Were he to purchase Dow Jones, the owner of the Wall Street Journal, he would control the minds of every rich man in America.

Bancroft family: The three dozen adult members can't agree to relinquish control of their empire, The Dow Jones, for Murdoch's $5 billion offer. Their tentativeness in making the sale is reminiscent of 101 Dalmatians, when a poor couple refuses to sell its puppies for an exorbitant price. Good luck turning a profit on those puppies, Bancrofts.
Prominent shareholder: Christopher Bancroft, who speaks for the family and was last interviewed in Boston wearing a suit and a baseball cap with the words "Bite me" on it.

The plot:
While Murdoch attempts to acquire Bancrofts' Dow-pire, his preset deadline of 5 p.m. Monday has passed with no word from 30 or so Bancrofts or any of their 100 or so lawyers, advisers and hair and make-up artists. Murdoch has said that if he doesn't get the family support he requires, he might simply take his cash and "walk away for a while."

Tune in next week: Will Murdoch seek other avenues for world domination? Will the Bancroft family make a decision? Will dashing British newcomer Pearson steal Murdoch's thunder?