people will eventually realize that, and ratings will drop even more

He who living room

Lives

Too much reality TV

Enjoys rich lives in cheap disguise...

1. Dexter, again.

2. True Blood.

Especially True Blood, which redefined the vampire genre in politically correct America. Brilliant, and fun. If you missed it because you heard it was about vampires and now you are dissing HBO since the "great" acting is gone (Six Feet Under, for example), you really missed out.

People are watching the wrong things. Friday Night Lights, which is probably getting cancelled because it's relegated to DishNetwork then faces absurd expectations, is having one of the greatest seasons in the history of television.

Lost, last season, was excellent. As good if not better than we've seen it in a long time.

The Wire had one of its best seasons (granted it's leaving but still.) Supernatural is good if people would overcome their bias against anything that comes on the WB and features leading actors under 35. Pushing Daisies was great. Fringe was uneven, but this is the first season. The Office is outstanding. Ditto 30 Rock.

Good t.v. is still out there. You just have to search for it.

I can certainly understand why people are disappointed with TV this year, but you're simply dead wrong about True Blood and Lost. You may not care for the shows or be over the general conceit, but both of them knocked it out of the park this year and will be first on my viewing list for next year.

I think the networks have really hurt themselves over the last few years, by putting shows on and then quickly pulling them off if they don't perform immediately. It might make sense when you look at one show individually, but when you look at the long term result, it makes viewers wary of committing to any new show. (And most of the time, the replacement doesn't do any better than the old show.) One of the pleasures of television is watching the same characters week after week, becoming familiar and developing over time. I'm a die hard TV lover - I'd rather watch a good TV show than a movie - but I've gotten to the point that I'm reluctant to watch a new show, because I don't want to get attached and then have it snatched away. I'll wait for the DVD. Multiply me by a few million, and you see why the networks are having problems.

In a lot of ways, I'm an ideal network TV viewer. I'm not hip, I'm not edgy, and I find a lot of cable TV shows too harsh, too violent, too vulgar for my tastes. But at least on cable, you usually know that a show will at least get a full season airing before a decision is made to kill it.

I really enjoyed Life this season, and I'm crossing my fingers that NBC is in such trouble that they will keep a show with moderate ratings, even if it's not a blockbuster. At least it got a full season and a half. But will I commit to any of the new shows coming out in the next few weeks? Am I willing to take a chance on Dollhouse, when it might suffer the same fate as Firefly? Not sure yet.

The minute the entertainment industry started confusing who they wanted to fuck with who had the chops to write, direct,i.e., actually appeal to their coveted 18-36 year old demographic, everything went to shit. The idea that only 24 year olds can truly tap into the zeitgeist of what appeals to 24 year olds, well, do the math. The equation hasn't worked and will never work. Sorry suckers, but it takes someone with some life experience, more often than not, to weave together compelling story lines, comedy etc.

But, just like with overpopulation, the networks are speeding towards their own demise and no amount of logic will compell them to hire the truly talented as opposed to the truly fertile. I haven't watched the networks in years. It's movies, political shows/news or Bill Handel, on the radio, for me now.

I have not watched any "regular" TV in decades. With the exception of Seinfeld, my last sit-com was Mary Tyler Moore. With the exception of Bill Maher, I watch no premium channels. My TV fare has been PBS, A&E, all the Discovery channels, especially The Science Channel, Bio Channel, The History Channel and the International History Channel, and one or two others, perhaps. With the channels just named, there once was always something to watch. But, now, this past year, I have noticed that the quality has diminished dramatically, and there are almost no new programs --- all reruns. The last new program was "Mars Rising" and while Wm. Shatner did a wonderful job as narrator, the entire series of episodes was noticably "dumbed down" -- to the point that the simplicity invoked erroneous information.

I read with interest Ms. Havrilesky's article which reported on the dismal quality of "regular" TV (which seemed that way to me 15 years ago), and wondered, as I read, if there would be commentary on some of the channels in my sphere of interest. There was not. But, it wasn't necessary, actually. PBS has been on a downward spiral for some time, especially since government funding over the past several years has been largely curtailed.

But, I wonder about the new crop of programming on "my" channels. Besides "dumbing down" every other newish program seems to be produced in the manner of reality shows (Naked Archaeologist, for example;)OR... the content is about disasters, murder, serial killers, evil women, more murder, sexual perverts, dectective programs such as Forensic Files, and cop shows wherein most of the bad guys are black or brown people.

I ask the question: What is happening here? Something seems amiss. Granted my taste is narrow compared to others, but I have over 600 channels plus music on my Comcast cable subscription and most times, of late, there is "nothing to watch."

I welcomed Ms. Havrilesky's comments regarding Jay Leno. "Oh," I said to myself, "Good... I'm not the only one." Having just viewed our Christmas Gift of Johnny Carson DVDs, I dropped a tear for loss of that totally classy gentleman. None of the new crop of late night hosts approaches the class exhibited by Carson (or his predessor, Jack Paaar, for that matter).

Because of the dearth of programming, I turned to a program recommended by a friend -- Boston Legal. I was hoping for commentary by Ms. Havrilesky as to the value and efficacy of this program, but none appeared in her article.

I would welcome any word from her on this program -- Boston Legal. Is it me again? Or, is there something slightly "off" about this program? I do wish Ms. Havrilesky would post an addendum to her article.

Thank you for your fine online news outlet.