Coverage you can count on, if in the chosen demographic

Say it loud, I’m an adult 18 to 49, and I’m proud. Today’s media environment allows me to boast about my age because that wide demographic swath -- representing almost 130 million U.S. residents -- is the yardstick of choice along Madison Avenue, determining how much advertisers will pay for commercial time.

Still, perhaps due to my being closer to 49 than 18 -- and hoping to eventually graduate out of that privileged class -- I fear our obsession with youth has gotten out of hand, to the point where we are watching the first war whose coverage has been calibrated to suit the most fickle demographics.

Given that I am among the chosen, perhaps I shouldn’t object to the conventional wisdom, which sounds arbitrary but has all sorts of scientific reasoning and market research behind it. In a nutshell, media buyers adhere to the view that younger people are less brand loyal (and thus more susceptible to advertising), live in homes with more people in them (for older people, think “empty nest” syndrome), watch less TV than old folks (making them harder to reach and therefore more desirable), and will be around longer to drink Budweiser and shop at Sears.

Broader implications of this preoccupation with young adults will be the subject of a seminar today at USC, titled alarmingly, if accurately, “The Tyranny of 18 to 49: American Culture Held Hostage.”

Participants include author and media historian Neal Gabler, who in a paper written for the conference calls the 18-to-49 audience segment “the single most important factor in determining what we see, hear and read.” Indeed, networks are so intently focused on this age bracket that ABC provides only those results on its prime-time ratings hotline, as if no other criteria existed.

Appealing to young adults and trend-setting teenagers in an effort to sate ad buyers has promoted numerous media trends, among them the proliferation of so-called reality television, since the genre disproportionately attracts them; the 1990s surplus of yuppie-something sitcoms; news channels streaming text up, down and sideways; and even shorter newspaper articles, usually accompanied by pictures the size of a cantaloupe.

Now, beyond tailoring sitcoms and dramas to a younger crowd, news coverage increasingly reflects this infatuation, from model-like anchors to gee-whiz graphics that translate the war into video-game language for those conversant in Nintendo and PlayStation.

For all the finger-pointing about who’s truly reporting and letting you decide, the one constant across TV outlets is a more urgent, stirred-up delivery -- mixing dramatic music and Space Age visual packaging to grab and hold viewers with limited time and dozens of options.

Cable news’ information-overload approach began in earnest with the makeover of CNN Headline News in August 2001 -- practically encircling the screen with a constant text crawl and graphics -- and became entrenched after Sept. 11. In a larger sense, though, the all-news networks have taken a page from local news, from fear-inducing teases for upcoming segments to a more superficial emphasis on the look and style.

Which anchors are put front and center reflects this mind-set. Granted, there’s room to expand beyond the solemnity of Rather, Jennings and Brokaw, but flipping between CNN and Fox News Channel the other morning felt like a perky contest pitting the former’s boyish Bill Hemmer against the latter’s wide-eyed Brigitte Quinn. Thanks to Quinn and Laurie Dhue, in fact, even Fox News’ critics occasionally pause to ogle its talent, with writer Richard Blow observing the channel is “like Voice of America with prettier anchors.”

Similarly, three-dimensional animation of bunker-buster bombs or computer-generated soldiers storming cartoon buildings at times resembles an ad for “Mortal Kombat.” Graphics detailing potential battle plans and military hardware, meanwhile, mirror the whooshing on-screen displays of sports telecasts, as analysts break down what sort of defense to expect in a manner that echoes a Super Bowl or World Series pre-game.

Much of this is relatively old hat in local television, where consultant-driven newscasts have long targeted specific audiences, from hidden-camera stories about valet-parking thievery (to hit those upscale viewers) to highlighting any conceivable threat to children, a sure bet to hook younger adults with kids at home. Nothing better demonstrates such calculation than the way KCAL-TV Channel 9 seeks to retain young men following Laker games, opening a newscast not long ago with a story on the “Girls Gone Wild!” videos.

Ultimately, it’s all in the name of appeasing the hallowed 18-to-49 demo, in the same way “The Bachelor” is viable because it’s inordinately popular with those in their 20s and 30s, whereas “Touched by an Angel,” which ends its nine-year run this month, has become a liability because it isn’t.

Yet despite a glut of channels designed for a variety of tastes, the push to zero in on youth is remarkably constant, with even the History Channel circulating a memo urging producers to showcase “younger historians” wherever possible.

Although some of these excesses can be discounted, the overall mentality is galling to the extent it disenfranchises 78 million U.S. residents -- or 3 out of 8 adults -- who are 50 and older. There’s also something stunningly short-sighted about single-mindedly pursuing younger viewers when medical advances and an aging baby boom generation are certain to raise both the percentage and vitality of older people in the years ahead.

Television programmers say with some justification that they are simply operating by the rules laid down for them, while advertisers hide behind proprietary research that supports the status quo. And so it goes, with the mandate to serve youth imposing, as Gabler said, its own kind of media tyranny, catering to a ruling class whose reign has no end in sight.

Brian Lowry’s column appears Wednesdays. He can be reached at brian.lowry@latimes.com.