If a Democrat gives a speech and cable news doesn't give a Cheney, does he make a sound...

It's official. I'm a convention junkie. I can't peel my eyes away from television for more than a moment so as not to miss a moment of the action. And there is plenty of action. There is action in the words of the speakers. There is action in the cheers and tears of the crowds. I'm sure there is plenty of action at the after parties, if you know what mean. Umm-hmmmm.

Where there seems to be very little action is the disinterested and self-absorbed media "covering" this thing. All week long I've heard the media ask "why do we spend so much time covering this? It's all pre-scripted! Nothing really happens!" These types of statements simply show the media's lazy, arrogant hypocrisy.

Why do they cover it? Besides the fact that it's their jobs, they cover this convention because these speeches are important. These people are the leaders of one of the major political parties in this country, whose policies have far-reaching effects throughout the world. The issues discussed here are what the campaign will be won or lost on. Just because an address to the nation is pre-scripted does not make it unimportant. Charlie Gibson and Wolf Blitzer can stop whining about having to cover the convention when they stop devoting national time to water-skiing canines, Martha Stewart's handbags, and any other crap that is meant to makes people go "awwww" or "hiss."

The worst part of this coverage, besides their disdain for the idea of coverage a major news event, is how silly and unthoughtful the commentary has been. All concept of discussing the issues themselves seems to have escaped most of these cable news pundits. I restrict my comments to cable because the networks, in a shocking display of contempt, have chosen to show episodes of Last Comic Standing and Trading Spouses, because reality TV is so much more important than reality. And people wonder why the country's voter turn-out is so low . Maybe cause we expect so little of the vast majority of its citizens.

So while the networks challenge its viewers to ponder what's funny about Everybody Loves Raymond (which may be the harder task), the cable pundits concern themselves with process. Perfect example occurred last night after Al Sharpton went off-script to give a passionate speech concerning immigration, voting rights, the burdensome cost of the war in Iraq, and America's being misled into that war. Rather than comment on any of these pressing and substantive issues, the media began obsessing over the fact that Sharpton ran over 14 minutes and did not stick to his pre-approved speech.

Wolf Blitzer: "Al Sharpton was supposed to speak for six minutes."

Jeff Greenfield: "The more serious problem for the Democrats is ... somebody's going to have to do some very fancy footwork to make sure that Elizabeth and John Edwards get their primetime shot."

Judy Woodruff: "Al Sharpton just hijacked this convention, at least this part of it."

Oh, woe! What's to become of John Edwards' speech! Who will rescue him from the clutches of important policy matters being discussed by this inspirational black party leader! These are the same people who criticize politicians for running campaigns without discussing issues. Have I suddenly been transported to the Oscars? Are 12 minutes of Sharpton eliciting sincere emotional response from the crowd cause for alarm? Or do these commentators have no interest in covering anything of value?

Here's hoping they can give John Kerry the courtesy of paying attention to this monumental speech. And, John, please, please, please hit this one out of the park.