Tired of all the Michael Jackson coverage and nonstop parade of Obama specials and magazine covers filling the airwaves and newsstands? Think more attention should be focused on soldiers paying the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom or Iranians yearning for their voices to be heard?

Blame yourselves. According to the networks, they wouldn't run the stuff if we didn't watch it.

Take this as proof. When Jackson's death replaced the Iranian election as the dominant news story, ratings went sky high. In a Twitter post, CNN and Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz said that at one point following the news of Jackson's death CNN's ratings jumped up 973 percent, MSNBC 330 percent and Fox News Channel 243 percent.

At the same time, exclusive interviews and specials with Obama have been certifiable hits for NBC, CBS and ABC. NBC's "Inside the White House" special was run over the course of four primetime hours compared to a single hour each of his predecessors got in similar specials.

Maybe we tune in because of a secret desire to once again share a collective national experience where we all watch one thing and talk about it the next day. Or maybe many of us really do care about how much money Jackson's kids will inherit. I don't know the answer. But obviously advertisers and network producers have figured out that no matter the reason it helps their bottom line.

This attitude raises a series of questions: Should we be concerned that all the networks found money to send Charlie Gibson, Martin Bashir, Barbara Walters, Cynthia McFadden, Maggie Rodriquez, Harry Smith, Katie Couric, Meredith Vieira, Brian Williams and Anderson Cooper to Los Angeles to cover Michael Jackson's funeral while complaining about declining revenue or just accept the monster we have created? Better yet, who created it -- us or the media?

At what point do tabloid-like details about Jackson, or any celebrity for that matter, make one question the integrity of mainstream journalism? Have online sites like TMZ and blogs watered down what we consider news? Could you imagine Walter Cronkite reporting on Jackson the way today's anchors have been?

In a recent Associated Press piece about all the Obama coverage, reporter David Bauder attempts to answer some of these questions this way, "There's no denying that broadcast networks and the president have occasionally worked for their mutual benefit: Obama gets public platforms for his ideas and the networks get programming that delivers strong ratings at a time when that's hard to come by."

Bauder's point is simple: networks are displaying an unabashed enthusiasm for any so-called news story that drives ratings.

Just ask Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News Mark Whitaker, who said, "Are you going to blame NBC for giving that much time to a very exclusive, interesting and revealing look behind the scenes at the White House? Compared to what, more of 'The Biggest Loser'?" Ouch. I'm a big fan of "The Biggest Loser."

So here's my question to you: should editorial decisions be based on news value or the financial bottom line? The comment section is yours.

Pete Seat, a Schererville native, is former deputy assistant press secretary to President George W. Bush. He can be reached at peteseat@gmail.com. His column appears in this spot every other Thursday. The opinion expressed in this column is the writer's and not necessarily that of The Times.