I don't quite get this story, but it seems apropos:

Judge gets four years for using sex device in court.

I was sitting on a subway with a friend who has teaching experience, near a family who had a baby in a stroller. I commented on the fact that many of the images used in children's products are things that most American children will have no real-life experience with, such as steam locomotives and farm animals, and wondered if the use of these images was a holdover from the 1800's. She pointed out that it's largely about accessibility to a young mind; animals wander about, eat, sleep, make various noises, and that's all there really is to know about them (to a kid). Trains chug along the tracks, conductors are in charge of them, and people ride in them. These are concepts a toddler can get, even though they're far from the most important things in their lives. I think the same thing affects news coverage. The executive branch exceeding its constitutional authority is a REALLY important issue, and terrifying, if you understand it. But for most people, it's an esoteric issue buried under the general framework of life that's taken for granted. Killing a pretty little girl who's just as precious in those pageant photos as you imagine your vile spawn to be is something that fuckwitted average Americans can understand. And like any corporation, news networks care about making money, which they do by ostensibly caring about informing the public about important issues. Ergo, this.

Hmm, do I seem bitter about the world? I dunno... I've probably already earned myself a lifelong NSA phonetap anyway.

I have never understood why a realistic outlook on the world is described as bitter.

TV is fun. Why wear a hairshirt so you can feel like you're better than other people because you don't watch TV? There is no real "truth" anyway, it's all social construct according to the new philosophers so why not enjoy ourselves a little with some munchies and a good TV show?

Dear critics of the mainsteam media:

Has it occured to you that the reason the mainstream media give more attention to the JonBennet Ramsey case than to the NSA spying case might be that the mainstream public is more interested in the JonBennet Ramsey case than the NSA spying case?

I know the evil librul elite is used to telling the reglur folks what they should eat and drink, and how they should feel about immigrants and minorities, but you'd think they might stop short of telling the reglur folks what they should be interested in.

David Wright,
If this criticism is aimed at the Stranger...you might consider that the Stranger has been running its "I Love TV" column for a 100 years. The Columnist loves and heralds mainstream TV every week.

Oh David, Don't be silly. The mainstream media panders to the lowest common denominator. The sappiest, schmatlziest, most violent (if applicable) stories possible. That doesn't mean it's what "the people" want. They do it to sell soap flakes and beer and (these days) pharmaceuticals.

It used to be, when the networks were more regulated, they covered the serious stories and the public learned things. But thanks to the Republicans and Clinton, most of that is gone now.

Hence we get fed stories like JonBenet, Natalee whats-her-name, the guy who fell off the cruise ship, and all the rest of the gunk that is designed to make the American mind obese and indifferent.

Surely you recognize that?

Catalina: Yes, I recognize that. In fact, that's precisely what the post is about.

You seem to think that it's obvious that the government should intervene to "raise the level of discourse".

I, on the other hand, this it's equally obvious that the market should be allowed to deliver what people want.

If you want a media outlet that caters to elite tastes, go found one. Oh wait, there are tons of them already. I guess you actually want is that the government make the masses watch what the elites think they should want to watch. That's real nice of ya; I'm sure they'll appreciate that.

David, who's the elitist here? Me or you? YOU'RE the one who assumes that "the masses" are morons. I maintain that people want accurate information, but don't get it.

When we had the fairness doctrine and less centralized ownership of the media, we had a more informed electorate.

The airwaves belong to all of us. NBC, CBS, ABC et al are simply the custodians of them, and make a nice profit of that. Asking them to give equal time to all sides seems a small price to pay.

It the immediate sense, it matters little to me: My life is more than half over, and I have no children. I most likely won't be here when the whole thing collapses - as it is certain to collapse, as every previous empire did.

The elitest is the one who wants to tell the broadcasters what to do with their licenses in order to "serve the public interest".

I'm not opposed to broadcasters airing high-minded documentaries and foreign policy exposes, if that's what they want to do with their licenses. You want to force the broadcasters to air high-minded documentaries and foreign policy exposes, even if that isn't what they want to do. See the asymmetry?

David, are you pulling my leg? I'm beginning to think you're a parody or some kind of satire! You sound like the anti-hero in Jaqueline Sussann's "The Love Machine", and I refuse to play Amanda to your Robin - or Ethel to your Dan, for that matter. But I would consider Judith to your Gregory, if you would keep me in high-fashion outfits! ;-)

But on the off-chance you're not kidding, I'll take the bait: No. No "high-minded documenetaries" and no "Foreign Policy Exposes". Just good old-fashioned news coverage: Less missing white girls and celeberity fluff on the national level and less gory traffic accidents and corporate rah-rah pieces on the local level.

The relevent point isn't precisely what you want the broadcasters to show. (My examples, I freely admit, were chosen for rhetorical flourish, and may well not accurately represent your preferences.) The relevent point is simply that you believe that your vision of should be imposed on the broadcasters.

I think that you show an astounding degree of hubris, not just by wanting to impose your vision, but by being so wrapped up in that vision that you appear to believe that it is not just your preference, but objectively superior to the preferences of the masses to whom that broadcasting is directed.

Well yes - if my "vision" is for coverage of civic issues and real news as opposed to gore and fluff, then yes - it should be imposed on the broadcasters, in exchange for their use of the public airwaves. I don't know why that gets your panties in a bunch. After all, there's no such thing as a free lunch, even for corporations. And right now, they get one hell of a free lunch.

And before you come back at me with some tired accusation of being an elitist (you really should get a new buzz word. After all, I live in Southeast Seattle and have already shown that my literary tastes run towards Jaqueline Sussan. I'm neither a millionare nor an intelectual giant) answer me this: Why are you so willing - eager, even - to have corporations walk all over you?

Corporations are like sociopaths: They have no interest in society or humanity. That's fine - that's how they make money, and in turn that helps drive the economy. But because corporations are like sociopaths, they need to be regulated, just as sociopaths need regulated.

I know that may not fit into whatever ideology you are trying to live your life by, but ideologies are by their very nature unrealistic. Plus, I would think it would be boring to be so tied to an ideology. Sort of like having a mistress who won't put out.

I just hope that you weren't damaged by Ayn Rand at a tender age. (She's ruined more than one previously normal college student) If so, I have a piece of news for you: "Atlas Shrugged" was a novel. A lousy novel, but still a novel. Not a blueprint for living your life. "The Fountainhead" wasn't a bad romance novel, if you just skip through any of the parts where Howard Roark starts to drone on, but again - not a "Design for Living".

Is this suppose to me my list of "fantasy meetings," where I say "Gee, I'd love to meet Einstein and Abraham Lincoln or David and Catalina," or do I say what type of person I'd like to meet for real? I dunno, so I'll make this a two-part response:
1) "Wow, I would like to meet my heroes, which are listed elsewhere. Other 'fantasy meetings' would include loads of neat-o people like William Burroughs, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, David Lynch, Robert Maplethorpe and Martha Stewart." (and yes I'm aware all of them are dead...to me)
2) "Golly, I generally like to meet people that are interesting and that have their own unique view of the world. I guess that's my only criteria. Oh, and if that drummer rides his motorbike through Cle Elum, I'd like to ask him for one or two meaningful Ayn Rand quotes."

I'd rather watch the style wars on project runway than hear about the middle east. High Culture and Low Culture are the same. There is no binary division. I love the genius of television - Sex in the City, the Sopranos. It's all part of the discourse that is our culture.

Hey! Nobody's talking about getting rid of Project Runway! And you'll pry "My Name is Earl" from my cold dead hands! We're just talking news here - capiche?

TV is over-rated.

On a sci-fi note, I believe TV's are from an alien planet, used as a device to control us and therefore earth. And it's working - we are fat, lazy, and destroying the planet, spending more time watching TV than any other single activity.