An (Im)Modest Proposal

What if Harvey Levin was the executive editor of The New York Times?
Picture that: on the front page of our newspaper of record, instead of headlines picking apart the nuances of the administration's budget proposal, we could see what Britney Spears ordered at Carl's Jr., where Suri Cruise scrambled over some playground equipment, and why when David Beckham leaves LA the paparazzi will cry.
I'd watch that shit. And I'd hate myself every second of every day for doing it.
OK, so maybe what I hate is that Harvey Levin is right when he claims to know better than Bill Keller what the American public want to watch and read about on a daily basis. He's right: I'm almost certain that more people log on to TMZ.com than to the New York Times web site. But that doesn't mean that the business models of the two should overlap.
Two things comes to mind: FoxNews and Deal or No Deal.
Think of these two things. FoxNews is news for those who feel like CNN is a little biased. And maybe a little dignified.
All right, stop throwing things. I like FoxNews too, but I like it in spite (or maybe because) of its shortcomings. FoxNews is loud. It's slanted. It's a little brash. But at least it's up front about those things -- I know, people (if anyone is reading this) are right now getting apoplectic. "Blue," they're saying. "FoxNews is anything BUT fair and balanced like it says it is! How do..what the...GAAAHD!"
I personally think FoxNews' slogan is a little tongue-in-cheek. There are some who would disagree with me. And those people are entitled to be wrong. But honestly, I think the joke there is that FoxNews is NOT fair and balanced, but that they, in their open dishonesty, are being more honest than a source like CNN that implies, with every arched eyebrow and plummy Ivy League honk, that OF COURSE, they're unbiased, fair, and balanced. How dare you, bringer of impudence, suggest otherwise?
Now, if FoxNews is to CNN what TMZ is to The New York Times, then surely Deal or No Deal provides the same role (or antidote) to the Six Feet Unders or Deadwoods of the world. It boils it down to its most pure essence, and it's no surprise that the public (or segments of it, anyway) lap that shit up. Come to think of it, isn't that pretty much what crack is?
Deal or No Deal is almost like watching a television show called "Man Fall Down." It provides the basic elements of entertainment -- suspense, taking sides, and titties -- without caring about any sort of nuance or backstory. It's terrible and brilliant all at once. Kind of like KandyKorn or Hawaiian Punch.
Deal or No Deal gives you the guy (or lady) to rot for, and the object to attain. Then, they give you someone to root against. Oh, man, do I hate that banker! And then they give you some ladies, and all of a sudden it's an hour later, your chest is covered in potato chip crumbs, and you have the vaguely dissatisfied feeling that you're wasting your life.
And the network execs laugh, polish their monocles, and count their money.
Anyway, it's sort of a rambling, discursive point, but what I'm getting at here is this: yes -- more people these days want to know about the inane crap that TMZ brings us than want to read Paul Krugman's latest analysis of the bailout plan.
Now I'm no snob, and I'm no elitist class warrior. I like trash. Sometimes, though, you have to admit that the trash is just that, and that you need a balanced breakfast of information and entertainment intake. And you have to admit that US Weekly is not a news source. That doesn't mean we don't need it, and that we can't enjoy it, but let's keep it in persepctive.
Some sources out there bring us something we need, and others bring us product we can mindlessly enjoy. And the thing that provides something important should not be swayed by the booming success of the garbage pit.