As I said before, it is the last mass medium, and it is on life support.

The other day, I saw a poster for a recent ABC anniversary. The poster had stills from the network's entire history, more or less in sequence. The astonishing factor was that the early photos showed much more individuality and vision than the later ones.

It isn't simply nostalgia, either. Shows like "Batman" and "Maverick" and "The Fugitive" were, and are, simple junk pop entertainment. But they at least expressed individuality. The pictured performers were clearly different in their photos. From the 80's on, all the pictures showed simple portraits of the stars of the shows. They were almost indistinguishable. They looked like clones of each other. Even a nostalgia junkie might be hard-pressed to tell which show was which.

To get shows with individuality and personal vision today, you have to subscribe to pay cable services, and even there the pickings are slim. For every "Deadwood" or "Real Time" there's the intermindable HBO sports talk shows, those theatrical releases that HBO must run because they helped pay for the production, and the tired soft porn of "Showtime After Dark." (Appropriate that its initials are SAD.)

A good critic of any medium is supposed to do more than tell you what is good and bad. He or she is supposed to explain to you WHY things are good or bad, to help you discover your own sense of aesthetics. That requires a critic who is dedicated to both the medium and its audience. Dedicated enough to withstand the hype of the commercial interests of the medium, and dedicated enough to stand and defend his or her judgements - or to admit error when error is made.

A TV critic who hates TV and the people who read her column is worse than the flacks and media whores who re-read the network press releases and call it a "review." The latter exploits the medium. The former seeks to destroy it.

I've heard only rumors that this is a biased job. Havrilesky has provided yet another rumor. None of the critics I've read have produced quotes or much else from this, demonstrating the bias. Apparently, very few people have actually screened this film, and most agree that it is full of Clinton-bashing and Bush-boosting. My problem is that Havrilesky is an unreliable source of information; she may well have confused 9/11 with a corner store used by the unstylish, uncool "chickens" who she sees as her readers. So, unfortunately, I won't know if this show is a Republican swiftboat attack or not until the thing airs - and that means that, having watched it, I will have contributed to the show's ratings and it will be considered a "success" no matter what its content or quality. So much for advance warning...

Specifically, Havrilesky has set herself up as an elitist critic, showing her contempt for people who read her column or who might like watching TV. She calls her readers "chickens" or "retards" or other things. And therefore, when she complains about Dane Cook - a guy who admittedly deserves some criticism - she's unable to effectively comment on the subject.

There's a reason why Cook's comedy albums are "best selling." There's been little competition. Comedy music and audio comedy has been driven out of the business since grunge and corporate schlock have been pushed by the recording conglomerates. It's only played in out-of-the-way venues like science fiction conventions, college campuses, Internet radio stations and the sadly limited-audience "Dr. Demento Show." The comedy in these venues would blow Cook away - if only the public had the chance to hear it.

This holiday weekend, there was hours of comedy music played at the Dragon*Con convention in Atlanta. Artists like Luke Ski, Tom Smith, Grant Baicocco and Devo Spice kept the audience roaring - although they barely broke even and paid their hotel bills from their homemade CD sales. Any one of these guys could knock Cook off the charts, given an equal chance at an audience. I'd bet Havrilesky might enjoy them too - but knowing about them would entail her knowing about comedy and popular entertainment, and that might mean mixing with - gasp! - us "chickens."