• by April 27, 2005

Okay, something we need to know today: Why was Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, on Microsoft's payroll for several years earning $20K a month? (Not a bad haul, not by a long shot.) And what, if anything, does Reed's work for Microsoft have to do with the company deciding not to come out in support of proposed legislation in Washington state that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians?

What on earth has Reed been doing for Microsoft, one of the world's most powerful companies - a company with vast resources and great talent? The software giant's antitrust imbroglio is over except for ongoing suits in various states. The company is openly supportive of gay causes, committed to diversity, and has been proactive in creating internal policies that support gay rights. Does it seem just a wee bit incongruous to anyone else?

In fact, Microsoft is often cited as one of the more progressive places to work with family-friendly policies for all employees. Its benefits packages are among the best anywhere. From what we know, the company goes out of its way to support all kinds of families. So what gives?

The Reed affiliation came out as Microsoft catches heat from its own employees and gay rights advocates for not taking a position on the proposed legislation. The gay rights bill failed by just one vote in the state's senate last week. Microsoft remained neutral on the legislation, raising the ire of many gay advocates. The company has come out in support of such legislation in the past.

Today, published reports indicate that because of mounting internal and public pressure, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates says the company may rethink its decision to stay neutral on the issue. Microsoft needs to know that when it speaks, the world often listens. Perhaps it better put its money where its beliefs lie.

On another matter, the Minute has to hand it to Alessandra Stanley of The New York Times. Stanley slammed Katie Couric of NBC's "Today Show," perhaps a little too hard though and without on-the-record sources, but finally, finally, a reporter tells it like it is about the "Marxist-style cult of personality" that has grown up around Couric. Whether self-perpetuated or not, it has become noxious and truly insipid. Alessandra - go for it.

Come to think of it, what "Today" and NBC needs most isn't to have its anchors pen blogs - (Please, please, please, no more navel-gazing blogs!) - but a total overhaul of "Today." The formula has worked for a long time, but it's really gotten old. The Minute has practically memorized all the show's "tosses" and transition lines, the stupid little interstitials and banter blurbs from Katie to Matt, from Matt to Ann, and Ann to Al, etc.

"Today" and all the morning chat shows are just a bunch of relentless self-promotions for the networks. But why not try something different, huh? Be open, go native, get an off-the-wall producer and shake it all up. We just hope Zucker doesn't make Katie blog - do we need to be any closer to her than we already think we are?

But you have to hand it to Arianna Huffington. The political columnist and onetime candidate for governor of California has lured a bunch of bold-faced names to contribute to her forthcoming blog "The Huffington Post," including Tina Brown, Vernon Jordan, Norman Mailer, and Maggie Gyllenhaal, the left-wing actress who's bound to add some spice. We'll allow just one more blog, if for no other reason than we want to take a look.