TV: It's what's for breakfast.

New York and Los Angeles Times September 24th issues were wrapped with advertisements for new shows "Heroes," "Journeyman" and "Chuck." Some New Yorkers received their papers late, and readers in both NYC and LA expressed annoyance with having to tear the ads away from their newspapers before being able to read the articles.

Television networks spend between $35 million and $50 million annually for the launch of their autumn line-ups. In 2006, CBS printed messages on eggs! (I wouldn't eat those.) Networks just want to get people buzzing, even if they're irritated. But honestly, what good is irritation? How about respect?

My roommate said, "I feel like New York is pressuring me to watch 'Gossip Girl'." I was bored at the hair salon, reading Rolling Stone, and I put together a little stand-up "Chuck" from the new TV show, included in the magazine. Cute, but I still don't want to watch the show.

I don't see a point in selling out to the point of annoyance. People want to read their daily news without being harassed. These advertisements are impossible to avoid. While I know it's working, television remains to me 80% suckfest. Sorry networks, but you get a bad bee for this one. Advertise all you want, but let me eat eggs & read the Times in peace. If I wanted to watch "Heroes," I would.