...continued

This post is to continue the conversation that Miss Molly began with her post cansei de ser sexy, specifically Martha's response.

Martha brings up an interesting point; one that I hadn't crossed my mind. How much does the paparazzi contribute to the making of gossip, how much is the celebrities, and how much do we, as the public consuming this media, contribute? It's not a simple question to answer, and I don't want to propose that I have it all figured out.

However, we live in a capitalist society where the gods Supply and Demand rule. There are plenty of celebrities and, consequently, plenty of celebrity gossip. The public demands the gossip, almost nonstop, then we get bored. We're tired of Lindsay Lohan's alcohol issues, we no longer care about which one of the Olsen twins has an eating disorder. We need something new and the media supplies it, occasionally when there isn't really anything there.

What I'm saying is that it goes both ways. As the media-watching public, we're guilty of demanding a certain amount of celebrity gossip. On the other hand, the media needs to keep people interested. Magazines need readers, subscribers preferably. MTV needs viewers. How do they keep those subscribers and viewers? Give them what they want.

I agree, some celebrities pull through and do something good with their status. Martha mentioned Angelina Jolie. Bono is another (though U2 should give it up). These two realized that they are in a position to make change on a much grander scale than most people (though I hasten to add that most people, i.e. you, do have the power to make changes). I applaud those two for their efforts. They are noble and necessary.

Here's what I propose: Let's hold celebrities accountable. I have no delusions of getting rid of celebrity gossip but I think that the public has - we have - the ability to demand that our celebrities use their status to make changes. I want Paris Hilton to advocate for animal rights. I want Usher to teach voice lessons to kids whose schools cut music funding. We point out every other fault that celebrities have, why not point out their lack of humanitarian efforts?

Martha also mentioned that "sometimes the kitschy ending of an episode of "Grey's" is just enough to lull me into a restful sleep." And that's fine. That’s the entertainment side of television which, as I mentioned in my previous post, is still valid and, yes, necessary. Sometimes we need an escape, and allowing television to entertain us is a wonderful escape. I'm no different. My worry is that many people only follow that escape. Many people aren't aware of "the terrifying changes to our global environment, the unprovoked preemptive strikes and their consequences, and bigoted legislature and issues we need to take action upon" as Martha stated.

I'm not accusing Molly or Martha of this, I'm simply restating the point I made in my last post: television is a valid medium for entertainment, but that's not it's full potential. It also has the capability to educate.

I love and respect you both. I hope we can continue this conversation.