By Amanda Mull
Staff Writer ’04

I’ll be the first one to admit that I’m addicted to the ways in which our culture glamorizes wealth. More specifically, I live vicariously through all of the wonderful TV coverage the rich and useless have been getting lately. And I don’t mean news coverage (because let’s face it, Paris Hilton and Ally Hilfiger have never done anything remotely newsworthy in their lives), but that’s completely inconsequential to the people that make and watch these shows (myself included). For god’s sake, I’ve spent at least an hour of my life watching the episode of ‘Rich Girls’ where Ally Hilfiger and her father don’t do much more than fold her hundreds of pairs of jeans at least twice. Probably more. I’ve lost count at this point. Want to know the sad thing? I’d watch it again if it was on. And I’m not the only one.

It seems like a new show about rich, young, beautiful people behaving badly pops up every day. And quite honestly, I’m all for that. “The Simple Life?” Seen all the episodes. “Rich Girls?” That too. “Newlyweds?” Love it. “The Fabulous Life of *Insert Name Here*?” Wonderful. “The Osbournes?” Loved it before it got bad (circa season 2). I can’t buy a Bentley, I may very well never own a multi-million dollar house, but I can still watch brainless starlets and talentless musicians enjoy theirs on “Cribs,” which may have started the whole genre (not including “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”).

Why are these types of shows so popular? Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to answer that one. America was built on the fire and ingenuity that propels one to work harder in an attempt to “keep up with the Joneses.” In an age of multibillionaires, the Joneses are the likes of Kelly Osbourne and Jessica Simpson. We want to see exactly what they’re up to (how are we supposed to keep up with them without knowing what they’re doing?) and most stars are willing to do nearly anything in pursuit of the almighty dollar, so when you combine the public’s desire to know with a celebrity’s desire to be paid, you get the bastard child that is “The Anna Nicole Show.”

That being said, many critics bemoan the rise of reality television and, more recently, the rise of celebrities being famous for, well, being famous (see: Paris and Nikki Hilton) as the end of television as a dramatic art form. The thing is, they’re entirely wrong. You have to consider the nature of television: it was a medium invented to entertain those of us with the sort of attention span well-suited to half-hour snippets of drama that we didn’t have to get dressed or leave our houses in order to enjoy. As such, what is better suited to that sort of entertainment venue than shows that have no plot and no preplanned dialogue written by people who are much smarter and more articulate than those actually saying the lines? Theater? That was meant to be intelligent. So was classical music. TV? Not so much. Stupid fun has never been outside the realm of possibility for television (game shows, anyone?) and there’s no real reason for that to change now. “Rich Girls” isn’t any more the downfall of American culture than “Let’s Make a Deal” was in its era.

So, my classmates, be proud of your TV-watching habits. Ok, maybe not proud, but don’t be ashamed. Entertainment doesn’t have to be smart; it just has to be entertaining. Not everyone likes “Frasier,” but that doesn’t make you stupid (in fact, I’d be inclined to argue that that actually makes you very intelligent), just like those who don’t watch “The Simple Life” shouldn’t automatically regard themselves as intellectuals.

In conclusion, to me, only one thing is clear: there better be a second season of “Rich Girls” or MTV is getting a strongly worded letter from me.