"2005: Boob Tube At It's Worst"....
 

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-321453c.html

Can't say I've seen any of these, which is probably a good thing.

David Bianchulli is a dick, and all of those recaps boil down to "I didnt like it" with no reason why

wow...just wow

Looks pretty accurate to me.

Why isnt this in TVTalk?

OK, so which ones do you want to defend?

And why isn't this in TV Talk?

None, I just want substance in my articles

I think this about all the substance these shows deserve.

Those were really shows?

(Okay, I admit I watched a couple of eps of Kathy Griffin.)

I thought "Hit Me Baby One More Time" was kind of fun actually. Cringeworthy, but wasn't that the point? To laugh at the awkwardness of 80's one-hit wonders performing 20 years later.

I haven't watched any shows on his list but one, and one worthy of defending. Intervention is an excellent show that actually seeks to get help for people. Saying those who were featured on the show are exploited for entertainment just lets anyone that's seen Intervention know this idiot never watched an entire episode... And I'm absolutely serious when I say that. Unbelievable.

Kathy Griffin rules and her show is fun.

Exactly. I'm hoping for more editions.

Getting help is a side benefit. It's just another exploitation show. That's what's popular right now, and I think you're lashing out with the insults because you feel guilty for contributing to the popularity of this garbage.

Gotta give it to Jenny McCarthy holding the only non-reality show spot on the list. With all the drek that is reality tv, that must have been some feat.

Love Kathy's Stand up shows but didnt care for here reality show.
Hit me Baby was fun only because you got to see people that used to be popular in the 80's try and make a comeback.

It doesn't take much imagination to come up with a worst of list filled with fourth-tier reality shows, especially someone who is clearly anti-reality show going in. Did anyone really think Who's Your Daddy was going to be "good"? I agree that most of those shows were probably terrible, but disagree about his criticism the Battle of the Reality Stars... given the writer's predisposed hatred of reality shows it seems silly to criticize the show "because it had no stars" and that "'Reality Stars' is an oxymoron". That would be like me saying the MLB All Star Game is crap because I don't follow baseball and don't recognize the players. Not saying the show was classic or anything, but there's a lot worse out there.

Very true...bad reality is made ON PURPOSE...far more tragic is bad comedy/drama, in which everyone involved was trying to put out something special.

The Law Firm was great. Did people even watch it? Not only did it get moved to Bravo, but Bravo first moved it out of primetime and ultimately moved it to noon on Saturday with no repeats. I caught a few minutes of the first episode and thought it looked so bad, but then sat down and watched the whole episode and really liked it. The production values were terrible, but the contestants and cases were entertaining.

Even though they didn't make the list, I loved Kathy Griffin's show and Head Cases had a lot of potential. Pilots almost always suck and the second episode of Head Cases was much better especially with the addition of Richard Kind.

same here

I watched every single episode and hated that this wasn't successful because it was fantastic (often unintentional) comedy. I'm planning on becoming a trial lawyer once I graduate and pass that wonderful state test known as the bar exam, and the show was great fodder for me because the people involved did some brilliant stuff and some laughably bad stuff.

That's a bad analogy. This guy does follow TV. He may hate reality shows (I don't know), but he knows and watches more TV than most people alive. So a good analogy would be if you DID follow baseball and still didn't recognize any players in the all-star game. That sounds like a big problem. No one wants an all-star game filled with Felix Heredias, Alex Gonzalezes, and Yoyvit Torrealbas. Since any reality "star" has little name recognition to begin with, little to know acting talent, and are gone within a year, it seems to be a fair criticism.

Of course I didn't watch the show, so I don't know how it was. But it seems no different than if a bunch of my neighbors had a "battle of the network stars". Who whould want to watch that? Maybe me neighbors would...

As to the list, I've not even heard of some of these shows, let alone watched any. So I guess I've avoided the "worst" of 2005.

Yeah, but when you're going into a show called "Battle of the Network Reality Stars", you should be going in knowing it won't be Tom Cruise, Mariah Carey, Ray Romano, etc. You're expecting "people I remember from reality shows I watch". You KNOW they're not "stars" in the traditional sense. By the standard presented in the title, people like Rich Hatch, Susan Hawk, Evan "Joe Millionaire" Marriott, Omarosa, etc. fit the bill perfectly. The show was filled with people who were memorable parts of their respective reality shows, which is exactly all one should expect from a show with that title. To complain that they're not "big enough stars" seems to miss the entire point of the show.

I'll try an analogy: it would be like the baseball fan who doesn't dig watching AAA ball blasting the fact that there was a AAA All Star Game.

It may be a side benefit, but a good portion of the people that are "exploited" for this show are dirt poor. Watch an episode and do a search on the facilities they send people to for their respective addictions. They are usually renowned as the best in their fields, and are ridiculously expensive. It'd be different if they sent these people to the community clinic on the corner, but by agreeing to be "exploited" for this show, the people that participate are given a second chance they would not have otherwise. Their families agree to sign them up and force them to be "exploited" on television because they know it's their last hope, and the only way they can send them to these high dollar places.

And I simply insulted the guy because he made it obvious he's either biased beyond belief, or has never watched a show. I'll agree most of the shows he listed are exploitative with no benefit for the partcipants. But having watched this show and seen a couple of the follow-up episodes they've done to see where the people are now, Intervention has literally saved lives. I watch this show for it's "feel good" ending (Most of the time), not enjoyment of these people living in abject misery and addiction. Hardly something I'd call purely exploitative, unlike trash worthy of such insults such as The Swan or Marry a Midget. If you haven't watched the show, I wouldn't be so quick to judge it.