Hopefully we're not under attack again, so before I go clean up some spam, I'm going to write about a post from a blog to which I was recently introduced.

When was the last time you were able to convince your grandmother to try something completely new? My family has always been rather progressive, not just in politics, but it still took five years of "seeing if it's not a fad" before my grandmother switched from DOS to Windoze. Same with my mom, who resisted the simplicity and ease of Macs just to spite other family members with whom she disagreed on other matters. Getting my grandparents to eat sushi? Don't make me laugh. The "Nips" are still the Enemy in their minds, and whatever food they eat is Right Out when it comes to our family dinner table.
I know Corrente readers are special, but I'd guess most of you have similar stories. It's the natural condition of aging to be less interested in change and trying new things.

So I found this article particularly important after my dip into the Sunday TV news show pool yesterday. Here's the important part:

Seldom mentioned, however, is the fact that cable news is equally geriatric. Indeed, Fox News Channel and CNN are two of only three leading basic networks (the other being the Hallmark Channel) whose median viewer age is over 60. Headline News rings in next at 59.9, and MSNBC is still on the rickety side at 57.

Let that sink in for a moment. While it's true that older folks vote with more regularity than the young, it's also true that they, well, die more frequently. Say what you will about how much "today's kids" suck (and many of them do) when it comes to politics and paying attention, the simple fact is they are the future, while Grandma, sweet as she is, is the past. Not just the past, but an unwilling participant in today. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with her in which she tells me that "it doesn't matter anymore" and that "she doesn't care" to know about Pressing Issue X. To her, the struggles of today are for me, and the rest of "the young."

You don't have to have access to insider numbers about viewing to know the truth of TV today. Just look at the ads, which are the whole purpose of television. Adult diapers, geriatric vitamins, retirement financial services...people watching "the news" today are old. I like this quote:

The cable nets' older profiles have also yielded absurd exchanges about demographic superiority, such as the boast that more young adults view MSNBC's Keith Olbermann than CNN's Paula Zahn. Whichever midget is taller, the truth remains that the vast majority of young adults have no interest in either.

What should be troubling for everyone in news is that even with all their pandering to the under-30 crowd, precious little entices them to tune in.

So the news biz continues to pound its collective head against the demographic wall -- a scenario that brings to mind the Billy Wilder classic "Sunset Blvd.," where writer Joe Gillis tells aging star Norma Desmond, "There's nothing tragic about being 50. Not unless you're trying to be 25."

Indeed. I've been saying it and saying it, and it's time "all of us" started acting on the facts: people under 50, all over the world, are using the Internet and related technologies to completely change the distribution and consumption of information. Television, and print journalism, are irrelevant.

Yes, TV and newspapers still provide much reporting, and people like me can't and will most likely never be able to do things like go to Iraq and give "frontline" reports. But I don't have to, so long as there are Middle Eastern bloggers like Riverbend and Raed who are doing it for us. Add to this the fact that my computer now comes equipped with a language translation feature, helping me to read things in the languages I don't speak. Complete and easy translation programs are readily available for a small cost, and getting closer to free every day.

I don't want to rant, but I ask you: what would your world be like if you went a year without reading a single newspaper or watching any TV? Better, I'd argue. Particularly if you at the same time devoted an hour or two a day online, and used the blogrolls of the "best" internet news sites. Not only would you be better informed, you'd also be less effected by psy-ops and propaganda, which our media practically defines today.

I am not trying to offend our elder readers, many of whom shame me and my generation with their current as well as past proud history of activism. These good people are my heroes, and inspirations I can never live up to completely. But the fact is that change will come from the actions of a majority, and that majority is younger, browner, more "OK" with things like The Gay and pot and "miscegination" than ever before. Politicians and Beltway media types don't get this, but you should, Gentle reader. And you should apply it in your own life. Instead of worrying about the never ending prattle of the cocktail party B listers, worry about how you can reach out to those thirsting for real knowledge and information. Right now, most of them are over here.