Cleavage, fashion shoots and catfights have long been staples of tabloids and gossip magazines. What’s troubling, however, is the recent migration of such trivial matters into serious publications.

The Washington Post ran an 800-word article last February on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-NY) “cleavage on display” during a C-SPAN2 speech. A “Hillary Clinton and cleavage” search on The New York Times Web site yields 18 results (although admittedly, several of the articles critique the amount of attention Clinton’s outfit garnered). Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) spread in GQ Magazine earned a similar amount of attention. Even the staid Wall Street Journal commented on Obama’s penchant for a casual, no-tie style in an article entitled “Pulling Off the Obama Look.”

Serious issues, however, are overshadowed by the constant buzzing of salacious gossip in serious print media and on 24-hour news channels. The subject of Clinton’s C-SPAN2 address was the prohibitive cost of higher education — a topic many of us are no doubt concerned with — yet cable news channels, and even the Post, focused on the barest hint of skin.

Similarly, although it was excellent that so many viewers tuned into last Monday’s Democratic debate (it was the most-watched presidential primary debate in cable television history, attracting an average of 4.9 million viewers), the post-debate analysis on many news shows highlighted the candidates’ bitter personal attacks on one another, focusing much less on the issues of the debate, such as healthcare and the Iraq War.

What is most distressing, however, is that this is what we are asking for. In their book, “Politicians Don’t Pander,” political scientists Lawrence Jacobs and Robert Shapiro explore the impact of public opinion on public policy, noting that “the media’s organizational, financial, and professional incentives prompt them to exaggerate the degree of conflict in order to produce simple, captivating stories for their audiences.”

The mass media, as much as we want to hold it to the high standards of the Fourth Estate, is made up of competing businesses trying to make the most profits. As print publications face the challenges of online media, and round-the-clock news stations scramble to find enough news to fill their schedules, news is whatever we, the audience, respond and listen to.

Print media has indeed fallen on hard times. The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a 2005 study showing that 72 percent of teens get their news and current events information online. The reported daily circulation of The Washington Post has dropped from 779,898 to 709,500 in the past five years. Although paid circulation comprises only about 20 percent of a newspaper’s revenue, the loss in readership affects ad revenue as well, limiting the publication’s reporting capabilities. In our pop culture-obsessed society, sensation sells, and newspapers are hoping it will sell the news, too.

It wasn’t always this way, though. Just a few decades ago, JFK’s dalliances in the White House were well-known but remained largely unreported. Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes, however, were splashed across news headlines in publications ranging from The Times to the tabloids. Recently, even John Edwards’ sex life cropped up in an awkward Esquire interview in which he was asked how he managed to break his wife Elizabeth’s rib with a hug.

To end the stream of silly sound-bites and nonstop Jamie-Lynn Spears coverage we need only turn off our TVs and read serious, thoughtful articles instead. The media truly does respond to the whims of its readers and viewers. If CNN’s ratings skyrocketed after a polished and well-moderated debate — as opposed to the open-ended format anchor Wolf Blitzer used, which was highly conducive to catfighting — stations would offer more serious political commentary, and less sensational shows.

While there is certainly a time and place for a little celebrity gossip — after all, even the Times has a Style Section for listing those fashion faux pas — it’s time we made coverage about more than how much cleavage our politicians are showing.