Who needs Johnnie Cochran when you have Kim Kardashian?

Here’s how the headline would read if I were going to write a news story about this: Local man distracted by stupid, bullshit story while reading Google News.

The lede: SALT LAKE CITY — A 22 year-old man’s interest in the relevant news of the day was viciously slain by a headline in the Entertainment section of his Google News page. Eyewitnesses said David Baker was scouring the site for more analysis of the recently passed stimulus package when he ran into this headline: “Kim Kardashian Defends Jessica.”

“Who can blame him?” a random, completely fabricated female source said this morning. “A headline like that one just screams at you, ‘Stupid enough to be interesting.’”

…

Sadly, that’s what happens all too often. And not just to me. But, in my defense, I did read it with the expressed purpose of simply making fun of it. As you read on, ponder this question: Is that still a justifiable reason for reading?

For me, that headline was just too ridiculous to ignore. After more research (aka, clicking on some of the other headlines) I also found out that people think Jessica Simpson is looking fat these days. As a society, that’s what Simpsonian problem we’re focusing on? The fact that she barely has the brainpower to operate her bodily functions and is living under the impression that Puerto Rico is the man who sang “Rico Suave” isn’t the issue?

I’m pretty surprised that I’m surprised about this, actually. A focus on physical attractiveness instead of mental prowess has only been around since the camera obscura and is as interwoven into our national Christmas sweater as freedom, liberty and an unconditional love of talking dog movies.

I’m straying. The real shock here was how Kim Kardashian could defend anyone. The ghost of Robert Kardashian, maybe. But not his daughter—who’s now more famous for fucking a minor R&B star and a former Heisman Trophy winner (two different people) than the kindness she showed in befriending a maniac suffering with a sweeping madness brought on by the advanced stages of syphallis.

I know we’re only talking about defense in the court of public opinion, but it’s just as ridiculous in that context. Kardashian has an ass that could house a new Smithsonian containing a fairly extensive collection of artifacts chronicling the degeneration of human dignity in the last 10 years. The meaning of life, the key to stimulating our economy, ODB’s remains and Rick Moranis’ career are all somewhere in that vast expanse.

Kim’s not really fat, though. Curvy, but not technically fat. And maybe that’s why she comes to the rescue of Jessica Simpson, because she’s defending curvy women everywhere (A note: The simple act of Kardashian having to defend Simpson is a little absurd, but it gets even more absurd in the light of a few “facts.” Apparently, Jessica is a country singer now. Country fans, who are used to dipping Skoal, drinking regular Budweiser and taking home something a little smaller than the bull they paid $150 to ride at a county fair—so they could feel like a real cowboy—don’t care much about curves. Just a pretty face and one song about fucking a man just because he owns a Ford pickup is the ticket to stardom.) Or the two are both in the not-so-exclusive, I’ve Fucked an NFL Player Club that meets bi-monthly at titty bars all across this great country and Kardashian’s just helping out her fellow member.

Another headline suggests something more biological is to blame: Kim Kardashian Finds Jessica Simpson Hot.

With that headline, I don’t think my sex-drunk (more accurately, drunk with the thought of sex, not the actual act. I don’t want to give the impression I’m something that I’m not—attractive), 22-year-old mind can be blamed for drifting away from one stimulus in hopes of a more physically rewarding one. But that may just be an excuse. As a long-time apologist for the under-sexed and over-masturbated among us, I would argue it’s a good excuse, too. We’re men and men will risk major bodily harm to even get a chance to see two girls kiss.

But libidinous reasons ARE more forgivable. We can’t help but retain some of our animalistic qualities. I won’t rebuke anyone for letting his penis (or her vagina, I suppose, but it would be much harder to accomplish, I think) do the clicking.

I do find something morally reprehensible about reading celebrity gossip for the sake of reading celebrity gossip. A general interest in that sort of bullshit seems very foreign to me, and that may explain my adverse reaction, but I think my little digital detour this morning says something more about our nation as a whole—and if it doesn't I'm probably just going to keep trying until I trick myself into think their is some strained connection.

We are easily distracted. And that’s partially our fault. The circular argument would go something like this:

“But there’s a lot of this celebrity stuff out there to get distracted by.”

“Well, there wouldn’t be so much if there wasn’t a market for it.”

It’s the “Which came first, Kim Kardashian or her ass” question, and it’s a trap someone raging about this notion can easily fall into, which is exactly what I did. I tend to place all blame on the consumer, though. If we decide things are a viable profit factory, then the cogs will turn, churning out whatever it may be—Jerry Bruckheimer movies, Beanie Babies, or celebrity gossip. And if you didn’t know this before (god help your naïve soul, I hope you didn’t put all your eggs in that Publisher’s Clearing House basket), news, like every business, is about one thing—money.

As the consumers, we are the ones who decide what’s important. So—and this is the big, bullshit call to action you’ve been waiting for—don’t read that shit. Unless it’s for the purpose of satirizing it later. I don’t want to sound like I’m advocating a politics-and-news-inspired boredom, though. I’m not. It’s not long before I too have to jump out of the political above-ground pool because my fingers and toes prune at a rather rapid pace, ruining the experience.

Broaden your scope, I’m all for it. Pop culture is OK, because it has some relevancy in the grand scheme of things. Sports are OK, even. Those things have some value—others would disagree, but those people are even a little further up their own asses than I am. The only important thing that I’m trying to get across in all this rambling is that we, as a society, need to start figuring out what is important, what’s for fun and what’s simply fodder for parody—and that all three things are valid reasons for consuming the media they’re associate with.

So there’s my answer to the question I asked earlier (the one you’ve no doubt forgotten) about reading simply to make fun of. It’s also very hard to read any news when they have the picture below (courtesy of Google News, and originally a PETA ad on PETA.org) on your page.