In today's Boston Globe, Matthew Gilbert complains that the Fox TV show "American Idol," which auditions thousands of people to become the next big pop singer, is cruel and exploitative. I suppose by answering this charge, and denying it to be true, I am admitting that I actually watch the show. But so be it. I have.

Says Gilbert:

As the judges laugh in the faces of vulnerable kids with clumped hair and pockmarked skin, they re-create the "Carrie"-esque nightmare of every freshman geek ever accused of having cooties. They are the rich and famous shaking their heads over the great unwashed, the haves chuckling about the have-nots.

But the "cooties" were imaginary; these people really have zero singing talent. They may be "have-nots," but that lack was delivered to them by nature, not by the "haves" who cruelly took it away from them.

I'm not sure "American Idol" can take responsibility for every dreamer who flocks to its cattle calls like pilgrims on a religious trek. And, in our high-gloss TV atmosphere, there is something quite welcome about Cowell's scathing honesty, even if the truth can hurt. But setting up clueless and desperate people for public shaming isn't the truth; it's exploitation. There's a line between taking cruel advantage of someone's feeble delusion and enjoying their foibles; in some cases, it's a fine line, but one that's clear to anyone with a heart.

If these thousands of contestants, who have watched the show for three years and clearly understand what happens, sign up for this task, how can we claim they are being exploited? Doesn't exploitation imply lack of knowledge or lack of alternatives? These people are willing customers, people often so self-deluded by confidence in their singing abilities (who are these tone-deaf friends and family who say they have talent?), that they are willing to take the risk of public humiliation to confirm it. When that dream pops with a Simon Cowell dismissal, you can't help but think, "they asked for it."

Is it heartless? I guess that depends how you view pretentious people. Americans tend to hate pretention, thinking you are something you are not and "taking on airs." This is probably why Idol is so popular. What's the difference between someone who thinks themselves superior because of birth, wealth, or lineage, and someone who thinks themselves supremely talented, uniquely gifted above the riff-raff? Both, when taken past their normal limits, strike most as unbecoming. Pride is excusable when combined with a degree of humility, thankfulness, and context. But when it becomes hubris and, when critiqued before the crowd, shown to be nonsense, it falls to the ground.

We shouldn't let our embarrassing national obesession with "self-esteem" get in the way of correcting pretention and false hope. Are they poor saps who deserve our pity (would they want that?), or poor saps who deserve a bracing splash of cold water to snap them out of their hubris. In my view, they need the splash: You are fooling yourself, you have no talent, and the longer you delude yourself the more painful the unfulfilled dreams will become. Thought of this way, the Cowell denial is an act of charity more than cruelty. Hard landings wake people up.

Sometimes.