The philosophical question confronting us today, class, is this: Is the stupidity of the media compulsory? Now, before you answer a resounding and optimistic “No!” let us consider, like good philosophers, all the reasons why the answer might be yes. For if you assume, as the media do, that the preponderance of those who read or watch the works of America’s journalists are stupid, trivial-minded, tasteless, and shamelessly addicted to gossip, what reason could possibly persuade you not to cater to such people? It would, of course, be possible, to produce a journalistic oeuvre that was over the heads of the majority, but the majority would then simply cease to attend. As it would not be practicable to pass a law requiring people to watch the nightly news, we must make the nightly news as attractive as possible to those whose ability to understand serious political and international matters is—to say the least—strictly limited.

Indeed, our devil’s advocate might continue, we find that the existing journalistic outlets are already above the heads of most people. This we deduce from the fact that newspaper readership is declining, as is the audience even for classic television news, and that the only growth areas of the media are television shows, many on cable, and internet sites that specialize in political and show-biz gossip. Regrettable as the fact may be, the market (in which, after all, everyone now believes) requires that such serious journalism as remains must be dumbed down even further