Media Literacy: What you mean "We," media pundit?

Media critics like to describe Oprah Winfrey as "The Queen of Media," but this is an illusion. In reality, Oprah is "The Queen of the Third Law of Media."

In the media literacy toolbox, the third law of media states: "The most misused word in the media-public relationship is 'we.' " The third law is set up by the second law: "The media is an exercise in the power of small numbers."

Here are a couple of common examples:

Dwight Garner, The New York Times: "Why are we willing to shell out $24.95 at the local Barnes & Noble to read about someone else's pets?"

Kyra Phillips: CNN: "I mean, are we just so pathetic and so lonely that we have to live through people like Paris Hilton?"

Garner was writing about a cluster of books on the best-seller lists that told stories about animals. His specific interest was in "Water for Elephants," which, in a nation of 303 million, had sold about 248,000 copies.

Instead of writing, "Why are 248,000 people willing . . . ," he wrote, "Why are we willing . . . ," as if "Water for Elephants" had the entire nation in thrall. Why does he do that?

Kyra Phillips was one of a group of media professionals talking about media coverage of the hot celebrity Paris Hilton's on-again off-again time in jail. Remember, that was the story with the photo of Paris bloated with tears, through the window of a car, that ran on the front page in an embarrassing number of newspapers.

I don't know about you, but I don't think Kyra should have counted me among those who are so pathetic and lonely that I have to live through people like Paris Hilton. I have the Nielsen Ratings to back me up. Hilton's celebrity is essentially a creation of magazines like "People," whose circulation is a little under 4 million, in a nation of 304 million, and of cable television breathlessers like "Access Hollywood," whose Nielsens don't reach a 3 rating, in the nation's television universe of about 114.5 million homes.

"We"? Not me. If I am going to do some living through somebody else, it would be somebody more like Willie Nelson. A part of me aspires to sound like him and look like him. Seldom has so compelling a voice so nearly matched the persona. I'll bet I could find at least 10 million people in the country who would agree with me, and buy a million copies of his latest CD.

But, we? All 304 million? Don't think so. The celebs don't need nearly all of us, anyway. Dwight Garner was writing about "Water for Elephants" because its author, Sara Gruen, on the strength of 248,000 copies sold, had signed a contract to write two more books, for which she would be paid an advance of five million dollars.

Therein lies platinum proof of the media code's second law, about the power of small numbers. If just one-half of one percent of the population buys a copy of each of those books, the publisher, Spiegel & Grau, will be delirious with joy. If a tenth of the nation's high schools adopt "Michael's Media Literacy" as a contemporary studies text, I will get my own monogrammed chair on "Oprah."

Then a media pundit would go on the air and say, "This is the book we have been waiting for," and of course that would be wrong. The correct word, in any discussion of the media-public relationship, is "you." If Kyra Phillips would just look into the CNN camera and say, "Are you just so pathetic, etc.," it would provide me, and 95 percent of the 250,000 watching CNN at that moment the opportunity to yell back, "No!"

That leaves just five percent of the 250,000 – 12,500 viewers of this particular program in real time – to yell "Yes!" at Kyra Phillips and defend Paris. Not many. But they're out there, hard as that may be to believe, and they're enough. Enough to make Paris famous, and to mislead media pundits into opining that somehow paying attention to Paris Hilton represents a bad end for us all. The next time you hear someone say that on television, or read it in a newspaper, fire off an email explaining the Second Law of Media.