Staff Editorial: TV or not TV?

If we had a flatscreen TV in the Bullet office, and it could talk, we would ask it, “Where are you going, TV?”  Sometimes TV serves us up some of the most depressing, soul-demolishing nonsense we’ve ever seen, and then, just as we’re about to throw the remote across the room, it hits us with something awesome, like “30 Rock” or “Big Love.”  If you can get us to sympathize with a Mormon polygmist, what can’t you do?
With more and more quality film actors gracing the small screen and writing improving at a “Desperate” speed, our miniscule attention spans are wholly gratified within a 30 minute to an hour time span, and all in the privacy of our own living rooms, where the snacks are free and the sweatpants are comfy.  Plus, we don’t have to shell out the big bucks to watch the sequel du jour, or a car turn into a robot, or Keanu Reeves (yet).
However, for every great bit of TV action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, that being the vomit induced by scummy reality shows like “Rock of Love.”  Anything that forces us to watch never-were rockers with scraggly hair and gravity-stricken bellies go through women faster than they go through cans of hairspray can’t be the future of entertainment.  We’re sure Andy Warhol would not approve of Bret Michaels exceeding his 15 minutes.
This neck-and-neck battle of crap vs. cool begs the question, what is the fate of television?  On one hand, we’ve got “The Office,” “Weeds,” “Heroes” and alums such as “Arrested Development,” “Sex and the City” and “Six Feet Under.”
On the other hand, some jackass at ABC is turning the GEICO caveman commerials into an actual half-hour of television.  I think we’ve hit Bedrock bottom.
What’s next, a one-hour drama for that damned Cockney lizard? A cooking show starring Jared from Subway, who no matter how skinny he gets will always mysteriously look like a fat guy?
Faster than you can say “Jennifer Garner stinks no matter what size screen she’s on,” TV crap has won the battle yet again.