Not just because the Red Sox will be in town, though anywhere the Sawx go, the place is special.

There is so much in play in the world as the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies -- the trade group that includes the Philadelphia City Paper and Philadelphia Weekly -- convenes in Andrew Warhola's hometown on Thursday for its annual convention. Over the course of three days, in between barhopping and visits to the new Pirates stadium, we will dissect the issues of the day and try to figure out what role we should play in a society where the government routinely lies and the media's watchdog status is being compromised by forces external and internal.

Those weapons that required us to inflict severe acute urban renewal upon Mesopotamia? Well, that's not really what we were looking for.

George Bush, who'd already absconded with an election, played the world like he was dealing three-card Ahkbar.

There's Jayson Blair, Rick Bragg and the New York Times insanity. Though we've been inundated with their mishegoss, the lessons must be ingrained in our minds. The public really does have a right to: A) in the case of Blair, honest reporting, and B) in the case of Bragg and the Times policies on crediting freelance writers, an honest accounting of how stories get covered.

And then there's the Federal Communications Commission, which -- under the guidance of the Secretary of State's son, Michael Powell -- tremendously reduced media ownership restrictions this week. Meaning that the number of truly competing outlets to cover the administration's shenanigans is reduced. Meaning fewer questions.

A large number of Americans are steadfastly opposed to this abomination, which was conducted in virtual secrecy thanks to Powell. It was opened up only after tremendous uproar from the people, a crucial moment in democracy that brought together such divergent groups as the NRA, MoveOn and Common Cause to fight for open government.

Despite this outpouring of anger -- hundreds of thousands of people exercising their rights to protest, in some form, the Commission's much-anticipated ruling -- Powell prevailed. But not without a fight from his own panel.

"I dissent because today the Federal Communications Commission empowers America's new Media Elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the media on which our society and our democracy so heavily depend," wrote Democratic Commission member Michael J. Copps in his minority statement. "This morning we are at a crossroads -- for the Federal Communications Commission, for television, radio and newspapers, and for the American people. The decision we five make today will recast our entire media landscape for years to come. At issue is whether a few corporations will be ceded gatekeeper control over the civil dialogue of our country; content control over our music, entertainment and information; and veto power over the majority of what we and our families watch, hear and read. On this path we endanger time-honored safeguards and time-proven values that have strengthened the country as well as the media."

Thank the deity of your choice for a vigorous alternative media that has -- for going on four decades -- asked the questions nobody else would.

How much longer we remain so vigorous, sadly, is a question we must also now ask.

Our war-weary economy, battered by a severe lack of consumer confidence, is cutting back pages and people.

And though we like to carp at corporate journalism, which was doing very well in dousing democracy even before Michael Powell, we are not without our own democracy-threatening scandals.

Our ranks were temporarily thinned when New Times and Village Voice conspired to close newspapers they owned in Cleveland and Los Angeles, respectively. All for the love of money and the hell with the questions -- our Constitutional obligation.

In perhaps the only time Ashcroft got something right, a concept that hurts my fingers to input into the keyboard, the Justice Department stepped in and stopped the nonsense, in January ordering both chains to sell the assets of the papers they shut down to new ownership that would open them up again.

"Rather than letting the marketplace decide the winner, these companies chose to corrupt the competitive process by swapping markets, thereby guaranteeing each other a monopoly and denying consumers in Los Angeles and Cleveland the continued benefits of competition," said R. Hewitt Pate, acting assistant attorney general in charge of the antitrust division, in a quote on the Justice Department web page. "The Sherman Act clearly prohibits these types of allocation schemes between competitors."

According to the complaint, "this unlawful agreement eliminated the competition that had brought advertisers in both cities lower ad rates, more promotional opportunities and better service, and benefited readers with a higher quality product."

Oh, there will be plenty to debate over the next several days as we booze and we brag and we banter.