Tuning Out

Every month about this time, the NY Times e-mails me (and its other online subscribers) a list of the 10 most e-mailed articles for the last 30 days or so. This list always intrigues me, less becuase of an interest in the articles themselves (although I do occasionslly find something intriguing that I missed) than becuase of what the list seems to say about the interests of the (amittedly unrepresentative) on-line readership of the New York Times.

This month's list was peculiarly suggestive. There was not one article on Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, the Palestinians, Somalia, Iran or Korea. Nor were there any articles on spying, or immigration, or detainees, or military tribunals, or flag burning or "defense of marrriage" amendments, or any of the other subjects that so consume those in Washington and the blogosphere. There was also not one editorial or op-ed piece. The readers, in short, found almost nothing in the entire news or editorial sections of the NY Times to be worth sharing with others.
The four most popular articles were, in order:

1.What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage,

2.At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust,

3.Star Jones Reynolds's Departure From 'The View', and

4.Rogue Giants at Sea (a story about freak ocean waves).

Of the other six "most popular" articles, two were about Ken Lay's death, one about the man who blew up his multi-million dollar NY townhouse rather than give it to his estranged wife, one about Google, and one about the bizarre end to the World Cup. Of the ten, the only one that might begin to qualify as "news" (at least as I define it) was this, coming in at number 7: Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit .

What do I make of this? Probably too much. But it does seem to suggest that people -- even the types that read the NY Times -- have simply tuned out. The purient and perverse (Ken Lay, the NY town house, Star Jones Reynolds, and the Zidane head-butt incident) will catch their interest, as will forces of nature (rogue waves and Google), the counter-intuitve (female dominance in college) and the simply bizarre (Shamu on marriage). But the only "news" readers see fit to share with others is the rare bit of good news (whoops! the deficit is coming down a bit). The rest is so unrelentingly bad that, even if it is read, forwarding it to people who may have had the good fortune to avoid it would be bad manners or worse: "Hey Joe. Just in case you didn't hear, there were 120 peoplke killed in Iraq yesterday. Have a nice day."

I find myself doing the same thing. I look at the headlines and flinch. I feel like it is "important," but I have to make myself read even a couple paragraphs. Mostly, I skip anything beyond the headline and go off ot look, usually fruitlessly, for something upbeat or new or surprising to actually read.

In part, at least, this is what lies behind my month-long hiatus in posting here. In particular, my enthusisam for "Billy Bob's Bulletins" had been considerably dampened. In posting the headlines about Iraq, or other events that might impact Billy Bob, I feel like a one-man morale buster. It is probably hard enough for someone in Billy Bob's position to stay positive without having someone like me making it even easier to see how f@%*ed up everything is right now.

There is lots going on, but it is all so damn depressing that the thought of "sharing" it with others makes my skin crawl.