I'm a devoted fan of E.J. Dionne, but his Post column today strikes me as intentionally obtuse. After a long, tortured windup about Leona Helmsley's dogs, Michael Vick, and the plight of uninsured Americans, E.J. gets around to his central grievance: the media's undeniable tendency to cover celebrity bad behavior, ala Vick's pooch abuse, far more vigorously than the far more important issue of poverty. Now, E.J. is far brighter than I--or most folks I know, for that matter. Does he really not have any idea what's going on? My guess is that he was simply searching for a way to take a poke at his own profession without looking like a pious jerk. But just in case, let me toss out a couple of non-radical observations: The most obvious factor at play is also the most contentious: The media focus on celebrity woes because...wait for it...that's what the public gobbles up faster than free pork rinds at the Iowa state fair. Don't bother denying it. Every time some variation on this theme surfaces on a chat show, a handful of listeners/viewers call in to express outraged objection along the lines of: "That's ridiculous and insulting! I am desperate to hear more about the nuances of Serious Issue X and could not care less about Paris-Lindsey-Britney-Jacko-O.J.'s latest foibles." Maybe. Alas, such noble news consumers are in the minority, at least if we are to look at what people are actually buying (those juicy, celebrity-heavy tabloid mags just keep proliferating) and unofficially voting for on the Web. When news sites like CNN list the day's "most popular stories," you find an awful lot about abducted kids, trashy celebs, horrific accidents, and freak-show families in the midwest too fat to fit through their front door. This morning's list even includes a truly gripping dispatch about a "monster spider web" in Texas. Very rarely do you find readers flocking en masse to in-depth accounts of poor kids and uninsured single moms. Why? Because it's depressing--and depressing in a grinding, overwhelming way completely unlike the fierce but short-term horror of some pampered jackass running a dog-fighting ring or even some deranged kid shooting his classmates. It is depressing to consume, and it is depressing to cover--which means journalists aren't exactly clamoring to focus on the topic for the sake of the greater good. (What? I should pretend that it isn't more fun to report on Larry Craig's stance or the latest Obama-Hillary spat?) For one thing, while decent people can agree that it's horrible that some 13 million American children live below the poverty line, there is nothing even approximating consensus about what to do with it. Just ask all those highly opinionated folks running for president. Poverty is a long-term, widespread, multi-faceted, mind-bogglingly complex problem. The vastness of it makes a lot of folks feel hopeless. And it makes a lot of them feel guilty because, while they don't know what they should be doing about it, they suspect there is something they should be doing. By contrast, celebrity scandals, crime stories, and natural disasters offer a cleaner, neater, simpler walk on the dark side. Michael Vick broke an easily understandable law. He engaged in disgusting, graphic, brutal behavior for which we can gleefully denounce him and demand swift punishment. Plus, we get to feel good about ourselves because, hey, we're not beating dogs to death in our spare time. Everybody wins. None of which is meant to justify the shallow proclivities of the media--or the public. E.J. is correct in contending that serious journalists (and, no, I do not consider that phrase an oxymoron for the entire profession) have an obligation to serve up stories that are more spinach than ice cream. But let's not be coy about why things are the way they are: The situation is appalling, but it ain't a mystery. --Michelle Cottle