Regular readers know I can't stand television, and I don't watch network television programming at all. As I freely admitted in two recent posts, this makes me a cultural illiterate.

For the life of me, I don't know what programs are on, and if I hang out with television watchers and they discuss programs, I haven't a clue as to who or what is being discussed. I say this not to brag or put people down, but as a statement of fact.

A piece by Michele Catalano ("Who Cares About Jon and Kate? Apparently, We Do") drives the point home.

Seriously, I have never heard of Jon or Kate. I guess that means Michele has educated me about them, but not enough to incline me to watch whatever the effing show it is they're on. Apparently, there's a cultural knowledge gap:

There are more people who know what's going on in the lives of Jon and Kate than what's going on in Iran.

Is that a sad commentary on our population or an indictment of the media? While some may claim that the media is obsessed with Jon and Kate's sordid story, along with the personal lives of countless celebrities, I'd have to say the blame lies with the people who watch and read the tabloid news rather than the people who bring us the news.

There's a revolution going on right now and it is not being televised. Not unless you count ten minute segments on your nightly news, right after the twenty minute piece on Jon and Kate. Maybe on your cable news network, which gives it a clip show treatment, right before Nancy Grace chomps up two hours of air time with a sensationalistic story that's two years old.

Does the media decide what to feed us or do we tell it what we want to be fed?

This is not to say that there isn't a market for carnage. I think if gladiatorial combat were made legal, millions would tune in (or stand in line) to watch condemned criminals fight to the death. So I suppose Iranian protests could be marketed in such a way as to tap the niche market that involves a taste for blood.

But as to things like freedom, truth and justice as marketable commodities, forget it. People simply do not find it entertaining -- at least, not enough people to justify the advertisers spending money. Yes, people's tastes suck. I don't think it's a conspiracy, even though it might be more emotionally appealing to believe it is. On some level, though, marketability -- what advertisers think will sell -- does involve conspiracy thinking, at least on the part of advertisers. After all, they want you to buy something.

Might it be that vapid programming acts as a screening tool? If you think about it, people who get off on Jon and Kate might be just the kind of people who will stand in line to buy shlocky and unnecessary merchandise made in China by political prisoners. They might be just the people who will call the slick personal injury lawyer who offers a free medical consultation. And they might be most in need of that firm that advises them to file for bankruptcy protection now. (Most important of all, they might be the least inclined to hit the mute button!)

Where does this leave that critical subset of people who are interested in following developments in Iran? What will they buy? I can't speak for others, but I'm the kind of person who will hit the mute button or change the channel at the slightest hint of a commercial, and most likely I wouldn't be inclined to buy something even if I heard the ad. Yeah, I like dogs, and I might watch a dog barking -- especially because I like to occasionally watch Coco reacting to those ads if I flip through channels. But actually buy something because of it? No way.

So, to the extent there is a conspiracy, it's an advertising conspiracy.

Should I be glad I'm not the target?

Michele closes with this.

The media doesn't tell us what to watch; it gives us what we want to watch. In a time when print newspapers are going the way of the dinosaur, many of them are surviving by turning their front page into replicas of The Star, knowing that the latest news of Jon and Kate or Brad and Angelina will have those papers flying off the shelves.

Protests in Iran do not sell papers; protestations of infidelity do.

Of course, I probably shouldn't say this, but one of my longterm worries is tabloid conservatism. As it is, I can't stand to listen to people like Michael Savage or Ann Coulter, but what annoys me the most about them others find appealing: their entertainment value. (Not a new subject in this blog.) I hate to say this, but considering the Big Three news networks are in the tank, it probably won't take long for one of them to try right wing tabloidism. Something to make Fox look lame and wimpy. If, say, Katie Couric was replaced by Ann Coulter or Michael Savage, CBS would clean up in the ratings.

And just think! Shlocky gay-friendly shows could be replaced with "family friendly" gay exorcism videos!

Now that's entertainment!