Long story short: A two-year-old video featuring Heath Ledger at a party where drugs were being consumed was purchased by Entertainment Tonight for a large sum of money (some are saying $200,000), and the show, as well as The Insider, planned to air the video in an attempt to "understand why Ledger died." Ledger's former PR firm sent out a mass email protesting the video, folks everywhere cried "poor taste" and ET ultimately decided not to air it. One imagines said video will arrive on YouTube within 24 hours, and at that time it will be everywhere; the secret video everyone will pretend they didn't watch.

Here's my question: Where do you draw the line? Almost everything these shows put on the air is in poor taste. So, instead of the Ledger video, they'll do 15 minutes on Britney Spears -- what she wore to the hospital, what she said to the doctor, how big her sh*t was that morning. This stuff -- this stalking of Britney Spears -- is okay. Airing a video showing Heath Ledger drinking a beer, while some dude snorts coke in the corner? Not okay. That's in poor taste. You should respect the Ledger family. What about the family of every other actor or actress who's caught doing something stupid? Where's the respect for them? There is no respect. You think the folks at ET respect Ledger or his family? They couldn't give two sh*ts about these people ... unless something they do is going to bring them more viewers. Hence, the video.

It's a pretty sick world we live in. I've watched this TMZ show on television, where the staff gets together and they write a bunch of stuff on a board. At the top of that board, it should read: How Will We Ruin Someone's Life Today? Isn't it sick to know that all of these people -- the shows, the websites, the magazines -- make all their money off humiliating other people? That that's a huge business; the business of humiliation. And then they go home at night to their wife, their significant other, their children -- and they attempt to be a good role model. " Help Jimmy with his math homework after you're done photo-shopping that pic of Britney's vagina, please."

I may have initially hated Miami Vice, but it might be time to take another look. Especially because it's taking Michael Mann a long time to make a follow-up (though it's normal for him to take a few years between films). Lately he's been concentrating on producing, overseeing such pics as The Kingdom, which is currently in theaters, and the upcoming Hancock, which stars Will Smith. According to Variety, though, Mann has found a project that he's interested in directing next year, and it's to be another vehicle for Smith, who Mann previously directed to an Oscar nom in Ali. The drama, titled Empire, will also reunite Mann with screenwriter John Logan, with whom he worked, as a producer, on The Aviator. The plot involves a "contemporary global media mogul."

Other than that job title for (I'm assuming) Smith's character, little is known. But with such a great team involved, I don't think we need to worry. They're all very talented and respected (even if Logan did write the recent version of The Time Machine), Columbia apparently dished out at least a million bucks for the must-be-amazing pitch and I trust that Mann will not disappoint me again in the future. Something about this project -- perhaps the hint of corporate and media dealings -- makes me think it will be most in line with Mann's The Insider, which I think is his best film, even though it doesn't have a lot of action nor does it have Pacino and DeNiro face to face. Empire also won't feature classic Hollywood icons, like the film noir Mann and Logan were recently said to be making, but with that in mind, I think I'm anticipating this new project on less-kitschy grounds. Meanwhile, I'm also hoping that Smith make this a priority over Seven Pounds, his presumed next film (following Hancock) that returns him to the care of Pursuit of Happyness director Gabriele Muccino. I guess it all could come down to which film Smith thinks offers him a better chance at another Oscar nom for 2009.

Of all the bad behavior we see on screen, is smoking really the one we need to worry about? Since the '90s, the tobacco industry claims to have denied requests from the movie industry to use their products, but most of the time they just went ahead and used them anyway.

The Guardian reports that tobacco giant Philip Morris will be putting ads in industry papers like Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, asking studios to no longer use any of their brands in feature films. Media critics have often accused cigarette makers of using movies as free advertising, but lately most of the attention was unflattering; images of dying Marlboro Men and sinister corporate thugs in movies like The Insider and Thank You For Smoking. Since there has already been a policy in place for years about product placement with little effect, you have to wonder whether these ads will really do anything -- well, other than making Philip Morris look like good corporate citizens. You really can't take their complaint very seriously when they're unwilling to even sue studios for breach of copyright.

Other than a return to a "production code" style of policing the movies -- an idea that should make everyone just a little uncomfortable, I doubt a few half-hearted protests from Philip Morris will make the movies hang a "no smoking" sign.

Another day, another confusing headline: "Gwyneth Paltrow says she's pregnant."

It sounds as if the headline writer has some doubt, doesn't it? Like Paltrow would lie or something. But the confusion doesn't end there. The first line of the piece says that the syndicated show The Insider is reporting that she's pregnant. But that "reporting" is based on not only Lou Diamond Philips introducing her as pregnant at a screening of Proof but also on Paltrow herself confirming to a reporter that, yes, she's pregnant.

Does every celeb story/gossip story/infotainment nugget have to have some coyness to it? Shouldn't the headline just be "Paltrow pregnant with second child" or something similar? Unless Paltrow says, "you know when I said I was pregant? Just kidding. Actually, it was just an allergy," I think we can stop all the bizarre, confusing reporting.