But we are part of a generation still capable of enjoying "scripted" drama and comedy. Younger generations, we are told, have progressed beyond such regressive entertainment. Younger generations, we are told, demand real "reality" programming.
Perhaps that is why we have TV camera crews accompanying police, fire and paramedic vehicles to witness real crime, peril and suffering. There are even TV camera crews awaiting in hospital emergency rooms to capture treatment of real trauma.
What professional TV camera crews miss, amateur video camera enthusiasts often capture -- so that TV viewers can see even more real horrific accidents, natural disasters and animal attacks.
Since no one has yet videotaped from beginning to end a large commercial passenger plane losing control in midair and plummeting to its destruction, one broadcast TV network considered blowing up an empty passenger plane in the sky so that TV viewers could get a better idea of what a real air disaster must be like.
Police chases on California highways have prompted broadcast TV networks (nationally, in the case of O.J. Simpson) to break into regular programming in order to provide viewers with live coverage. In more than one case, the chase ended in a real suicide.
Thanks to "60 Minutes," TV viewers were able to watch a real assisted suicide. Had former TV talk show host Phil Donahue had his way, TV viewers would now be watching real prison executions.
No longer content with reading about the latest developments in sensational court trials, TV viewers have a channel devoted to transforming the real pursuit of justice into mass entertainment.
Not content with providing TV viewers with totally unscripted peril, suffering and tragedy, the gurus behind daytime talk shows discovered that they could create circumstances that put people at risk of real reputational, emotional and physical harm.
Despite nearly universal condemnation of the resulting verbal and physical abuse on daytime talk, the networks defended the shows on the grounds that they were just giving viewers what they wanted and that guests knew what they were getting into.
In other words, had Roman gladiators consented to their humiliation and death (perhaps to gain their freedom), it would have been an acceptable form of entertainment for Roman citizens.
And so we come to the latest in prime time TV "reality" programming. Examples include programs:
The problem is not "reality" programming as such. Some of the greatest and most beneficial films and TV programs ever produced were based on the lives of real people and historical events.
Nor does all "reality" programming have to be educational. For example, most Americans enjoy watching athletic events. Most game shows entertain without providing much real education, if any.
But with much of today's "reality programming," viewers tune in because they enjoy watching guests be humiliated, abused and injured; or because they are indifferent to the serious harm that participants or their families are exposed to unjustifiably.
I say "unjustifiably," because in sporting events, we tolerate a certain level of risk of serious harm because we value or admire the ability, the discipline, the willingness to sacrifice and the sheer "guts" needed to participate and excel.
But what is there to value or admire when dysfunctional or foolish people needlessly expose themselves to humiliation, abuse or reputational, emotional and physical harm in order to be on TV? What is there to value or admire when victory belongs to rats?
Why are "reality" programs so popular?
Many viewers are curious. Others want something to talk about the next day at work or on the phone. Others are addicted to TV; and since the quality of TV programming is declining, almost anything new attracts an audience -- at least until something else new comes along. Others may believe that because programming is "real," it is somehow more meaningful; or because they sympathize with the losers, watching it is OK. Others may have a "mental disorder" (e.g., voyeurism, sadism or sexual addiction).
Why are TV studios producing so many "reality" programs?
In general, it is cheaper to produce than "scripted" programming that often depends for its success on well-known and well-paid actors. It also requires less creativity and talent.
What is the future of "reality" programming?
That, of course, is anyone's guess; but if the history of daytime talk shows provides any clue, the future is not bright.
Having chosen to take the low road, "reality" programs will almost certainly go lower still when the novelty of programs wears thin. That means more meanness, more skin, more vulgarity, and more risk of serious reputational, emotional and physical harm.
It's all part of "reality" -- especially on today's TV.