WE NEED OUR OWN FREAK SHOW; WE CAN'T SHUT THEIRS DOWN

Steve Benen, Brad DeLong, Digby, and others are understandably disgusted by yesterday's edition of This Week on ABC, on which, as Steve says,

[the] panel discussion covered exactly four subjects...: health care reform, Charlie Rangel's ethics problem, David Paterson's latest troubles, and the fate of the former White House social secretary (and where she's from, what her clothes looked like, what her next job is likely to be, etc.), which hardly seems relevant to anyone who doesn't actually attend social events at the White House.

As you may know, Paul Krugman grumbled about the significant amount of time devoted to the last of these subjects (in a country with massive unemployment, a subject that was ignored), and Sam Donaldson cut him off with a snippy "Paul, welcome to Washington."

It's disheartening. But is it just futile to complain about it? Is there another approach?

I'm not sure all the scandal trivia on This Week qualifies as what Mark Halperin and John Harris called the "freak show" -- to some extent, obsessing over Rangel and Paterson and Desiree Rogers is just an old-fashioned airing of political gossip, with an emphasis on gossip that's relevant to the two big news capitals, D.C. and New York. (I'm trying to ignore the fact that all three scandal subjects are African-Americans.)

But the people who run the media obvious crave something to talk about that seems serious, but is actually fun for them. Could it be that there's just no getting around this? Would it be better if Democrats and liberals found a way to feed this need, by personalizing as many disputes with the right as possible?

Why didn't Democrats make the last few days all about Jim Bunning -- not just Bunning's "Tough shit!" declaration as Dems complained about the fact that he was blocking an extension of unemployment benefits singlehandedly, but about Bunning in general? There's so much to work with:

... he compared [2004 Democratic challenger Daniel] Mongiardo's appearance to one of Saddam Hussein's sons. Then he made an unsubstantiated claim that opposition staffers beat his wife "black and blue" at a political picnic.

Earlier this month, Bunning backed out of a televised debate with Mongiardo, giving the relatively unknown Democrat 30 minutes of air time. Bunning joined another debate via a satellite hookup from Washington, where he read his opening and closing statements from a teleprompter....

Bunning has also begun traveling with a state trooper, telling one Kentucky TV station that, "There may be strangers among us," according to the Post. He has attributed his need for protection to the same classified intelligence that prompted Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., to close his D.C. office.

Most recently, Bunning admitted he wasn't aware that a group of Army reservists had refused a convoy mission in Iraq, saying he watches only Fox News for information and hasn't read a newspaper in six weeks....

Why not flood the zone with Bunning stories? Why not work the refs? Because some of the stories are old? Because he's retiring? Because he apologized for some of his past obnoxiousness? Because the unemployment legislation he's blocking is likely to pass soon? Because it's unseemly? Because it doesn't aid the cause of comity?

WHO CARES?

Just do it. The beast wants human interest stories? Well, feed the beast, dammit. Don't keep sighing and waiting for everyone to turn high-minded. Don't wear a tie and tails to a pie fight. Dress appropriately -- and bring a few pies of your own.

Then, when it's clear our side can give as well as get, when the nonsense doesn't all favor the other guys, maybe what serious dialogue we have won't take place with our side at a distinct disadvantage.