Michael Jackson's death didn't stun me. He was young, but it's not unheard of for a 50-year-old to drop of a heart attack, especially if he's chronically overmedicated. What stunned me was the massive outpouring of television coverage.

Public television was the only network that didn't succumb to Michael Mania. I'm turning in this column a week after his death, and the frenzy has only just now abated.

The "rock star" emphasis of television is not new, but it seems to be reaching new depths. In a week when important legislation was presented in Washington, the government of Honduras was overthrown, troops pulled out of Iraq, Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years, and who knows what else was happening, television gave us "All Michael, All the Time."

Dig below the surface, and you'll find that "left" and "right" in television is nothing but a superficial coat of shiny paint atop unabashed entertainment.

Fox executives know that there is an undercurrent of far-right religious fundamentalists, libertarians, and aggrieved racists who love to be horrified by the outrageous doings on the left - for example, trying to make sure that everyone has health care. Scandalous! So they give us O'Reilly and Hannity, and the faithful can be assured daily that the world is going to hell.

MSNBC executives know there is an undercurrent of disenchanted left-leaning people who love to be scandalized by the outrageous doings on the right - for example, trying to make sure that national security is maintained. Shocking! So they give us Olbermann and Maddow, and the faithful can be assured daily that they must remain vigilant.

All this pretense of politics vanishes when there's a big rock star story, for the television moguls know what really sells. This should tell us that our political ideas, the lifeblood of our democracy, are being manipulated, orchestrated, crammed into sound-bites and trivialized.

Left and right in this country both have valid points. Do you think it would be possible to have a public dialogue that could perhaps sway the left to invest more in defense and the right more in health care? Could there be consensus on, say, strict controls on assault rifles and welfare payment conditions without both sides pursuing their nuclear options? (They're taking away all our guns! They want to cast widows and orphans into the streets!)

Where would such discussions take place? There's an idea that political talk used to take place in town hall meetings and around the cracker barrel down at the general store. I'm not so sure. What is certain, though, is that intelligent discussions are not commonplace in modern America, except on university campuses, where the public is regularly invited to participate in lectures and debates by people of all political persuasions. Television could help to spread that wealth.

But here's the problem. It's just not entertaining to articulate one's points clearly and to listen respectfully as other sides are presented. It's difficult and frustrating, and most people don't like to do it. Far easier to grab a beer and settle in with Nancy Grace, where the most mundane kidnapping or murder reaches star quality, or Glenn Beck, where the snarky right-wing ranting never stops.

"American Idol" has shown us that anyone can become a rock star, and the coverage of Michael Jackson's untimely death has shown us, again, that the television industry gives us what we crave - salacious gossip, outrage, fear and failure. But rock stars don't keep democracies alive - discussion and debate does.

So the next time UNI advertises a public lecture on a topic of public importance, come on down. Recently we've had the secretary of education, Sen. Grassley, the WorldCom whistle-blower, plus experts on politics, environmental toxins, energy-efficient architecture, kidney transplants and the historical Jesus, and those are just some I attended. Be a concerned citizen; stay educated.