Growing up in a single-parent household, I spent a lot of time with my late grandmother.

When she baby-sat me, she always made sure that she tuned in to her "stories," which the rest of us know as soap operas. Although she kept up with each of the four CBS soaps, her pick of the litter was "The Young and the Restless."

Yeah, I grew up with a Super Nintendo and a Super Soaker, too, but my grandmother had me hooked on "Restless." I would watch it side by side with her year-round, until I started school.

Beyond the sappy love scenes, there are plenty of catfights, "whodunit" mysteries and enough paternity confusion to send Maury Povich running.

Why do we love this type of stuff?

Because Americans love drama.

As long as the bad stuff isn't happening to us, it's entertaining. Broadcast media has managed to capitalize on our love of drama.

But instead of an hour or half-hour format like the soaps, newscasters have decided to go into overtime - or overkill, as the case may be.

For example, we know Kobe Bryant cheated and that he's facing a sexual assault charge.

But is it necessary to analyze everything from his outfit to his contact lenses at the 2003 Teen Choice Awards?

There seems to be a blurred line between presenting the news and snagging viewers from other networks as each channel, all-news or otherwise, tries to find a new angle to the year's biggest stories.

In the midst of the quest for what could be the next O.J. Simpson trial, there are some sane people out there.

In California, Stanislaus County Judge Al Girolami banned news cameras and recorders from the courtroom during the preliminary hearing of Scott Peterson's trial.

The young woman who has accused Bryant of sexual assault is still anonymous, despite the media's efforts.

Whether it's the accused, the accuser or the judge, it's good to see someone with sense.

Some people have argued that the public has a right to know what goes on behind courtroom doors.

Yes, we have a right to know, but if I cared that much, I would go to California and sit in on the trial myself.

If the media wants us to know what's going on in this murder trial, why not all the murder trials? What's so special about this one?

While they're at it, they might as well tell us the name of every rape and sexual assault victim, whether the victims want people to know or not.

They're not important.

They're victims of bad circumstance, so why not weigh the poor souls down with more pain than they already have?

I'm a hypocrite, right?

I work for a news organization, and I'm badmouthing people who practice my trade.

But if there's one thing I've learned about journalism, I know that it's a journalist's job to present what's newsworthy in cases such as these.

If you look at a murder case, the only thing the public needs to know is who was murdered, who was accused and why the jury cast the verdict it did. All this can be wrapped up in one story or a tasteful series of stories that aren't blown out of proportion.

If someone has a story to tell, let them tell their story.

If they don't want to say anything, don't make them.

I remember I had a conversation that left me dumbfounded.

The people I spoke with told me how they couldn't even stand to watch the news anymore and asked how I could possibly go into a field that presents constant negativity.

I gave a sheepish answer, saying not all journalists are that way.

What I should have said was that some of us in the profession try to enlighten rather than entertain.

Aaron Foley is the State News opinion writer. He can be reached him at foleyaar@msu.edu.