This is Entertainment?

In this, my first post as a blogger, I want to ask one simple question: Why?

After checking out previews for the new crop of fall shows, I'm completely at a loss for words. Why does every show's script feel like it was stolen from the dumpster behind Lifetime's Headquarters? Why would anyone do something as exploitative as uproot forty grade school kids (*read: actors*) and ask them to rebuild a ghost town? Or, perhaps, the most relevant question, why do I have the sinking feeling that Kid Nation may prove to be a hit?

I've read the opinions of countless television critics on some of fall's "hottest" shows and I'm sort of bewildered by their reactions. Pushing Daisies is a show where the hero has an innate and *unspeakably lame* ability to bring people back from the dead, temporarily. The "gift" comes in handy when he finds himself in a position where he must revive his high school sweetheart. Although, apparently, once he reanimates her, he can never touch her again. If he does, she will die. Doesn't this sound like an awesome plot for a weekly show?

I'm sure during February sweeps (If the show stays on the air that long) we'll see Lee Pace's character gently caress his old flame's cheek or *almost* kiss her. Some clever writer will probably fit it into a dream sequence and fan girls everywhere will squee and rejoice. In case you haven't figured it out already, I'm not the typical fan girl. Don't get me wrong, I do my fair share of squeeing and flailing, but I don't ship brothers and I actually hold actors to certain standards when I'm watching TV.

What's frustrated me the most about television criticism in recent years is the lack of quality standards. Ugly Betty has garnered an enormous amount of critical acclaim, despite the fact that it's just south of a Spanish telenovela in terms of writing and production values. Grey's Anatomy has become a critical darling, despite the fact that nearly every major publication panned its acting and writing when it first came out. I guess TV critics have poor memories, that's the only way to explain it. That, or people have lost perspective on what quality television is. Somehow, I don't think that is true. At most, twenty million viewers tune in to watch Dr. McDreamy and Meredith's uber-sexy, uber-tortured lives. The truth is that I just don't care that much about the personal lives of doctors. It's Dawson's Creek for an older set, except instead of witty bon mots and over-articulate dialogue delivered by precocious teens, you get a motley crew of wannabe doctors and an overdose of mindless medical melodrama.

What's most disappointing is how escapist television has become. Sure, it's a diversion, but it doesn't have to be a nuisance. The average American spends at least three hours in front of a television every night, that's upwards of twenty-one hours a week. Why can't a quality prime time drama dare to be controversial or subtly reveal to the viewer some insight into the human condition. TV doesn't have to brilliant, it just has to be willing to challenge its audience, every once in awhile. Maybe it's foolish to think that television could actually *teach* its target demographics something. No one's saying that network television has to espouse PBS's programming beliefs, but a little respect for the TV consumer wouldn't hurt.

It can be said, that we seek in television, what we lack in our own lives. I don't think it's a conscious decision, no one starts out actively wanting to get addicted to the latest reality show, it just happens. Much like a bad relationship or an ex-boyfriend's tendency to drunk-dial you at four in the morning. And the latest crop of fall TV shows will inevitably capture the hearts of some viewers, perhaps even myself, why that will happen remains a mystery.