There are two sides to every argument. In some discussions, one person can represent both sides equally.
In the discussion about how bad or good modern television programming Dexter Cocheese, a fictional character, represents the type of people who don't have a problem with the current state of television. I, Dominic Graziano will represent the people who are tired of network sitcoms and the like. Make no mistake, I wrote this entire article.
Cocheese: I don't understand why everyone always says how bad programming is on network stations like FOX. The FOX network has done its best to make sure the fine people of this country get to see quality programming every night of the week.
Graziano: Insipid does not begin to describe the so-called "quality" programming on FOX. When I think of all the hours that viewers have spent watching stale shows such as "American Idol" or "The Simple Life," it takes all of my best efforts not to gouge my eyes out with a lackluster spoon.
Cocheese: Now wait just a minute. What did that angel among men, Paris Hilton, ever do to you? "The Simple Life" is a good show that lets common people like you and I see what it is like being a rich heiress trying to make it as a lowly cow inseminator, all while dressing in the height of current fashion.
Graziano: Don't get me started on that cell phone-losing nimrod and her boyfriends' poor choice in night-vision cameras. Besides, "The Simple Life" is not the only transgression FOX is guilty of; FOX has brought us other driveling excuses for reality-based shows such as "Nanny 911." We, as citizens and audience members to this massacre of entertainment, cannot sit back and let more television like this ruin the airwaves.
Cocheese: Granted, "Nanny 911" may not be the best television show, being based on nannies going into families' homes and disciplining children until they learn to respect their parents. To be fair though, with a premise like that, how could you expect FOX to turn down the idea?
Graziano: You've proven my point perfectly. We are at a point in television programming that almost any piece of garbage that is pitched to a half brain-dead producer gets sent to the drawing board, only to have conscientious viewers sigh in defeat when the end credits roll. What's next? A show about a well-endowed librarian, who, every week has to overcome her Barbie Doll-like beauty to show the world that she has as much intelligence as her plain-appearance counterpart?
Cocheese: Funny you should mention that. Pamela Anderson is starring in a new sitcom on FOX called "Stacked" that fits that exact premise.
It was at this point that I passed out from an unknown reason. Unexpected blackouts aside, it is easy to recognize that an argument such as this may never be settled. There will always be people who think that television today is just fine, that the programming on basic television isn't headed down a terrible spiral into the eighth level of Dante's Inferno.
On the other side of the argument are people like myself. I think that around three-quarters of all TV programming is, in one word, trash. When viewers spend their time watching celebrities live their lives, including acts such as mulling over whether tuna is a type of fish or poultry, the idea of quality entertainment is one step closer to disappearing. I can't help but wonder what will happen when these programs lose their "edge" and we have to move on to something else.