Have you ever noticed how many people think one reality show is totally ridiculous while being completely entranced by another. It's kind of like going back to junior high school. "My reality show is better than your reality show," is not an uncommon thing to hear today. If you watch any television at all, you're probably hooked on at least one or two of them. And if you're like most viewers, you are equally disgusted by some of the others.

Can any form of entertainment, however, be truly good or bad in the general sense of the word? Unless one watches nothing but Public Broadcasting, isn't the idea to be entertained? To escape from the daily challenges of life, if only for sixty minutes or so? Then it's hard to see how a show like "Fear Factor" where contestants eat disgusting things can be called bad if the viewers of that show find it entertaining. The "dog eat dog" competition on "The Apprentice" may turn some people off, but if others enjoy it, so be it!

But what about shows that some might consider denigrating? A certain percentage of the viewing audience may feel that "The Biggest Loser" is a horrible way to characterize people with eating disorders. Others with the same problem, however, may be encouraged by the success of the contestants. Others may just be happy for their conquering of a problem that they felt needed attention.

Then there are the lovers of classic television. Ahhhh, but for the good old days of "Leave It to Beaver" and "The Brady Bunch"! Well, there were a few reality shows back in the good old days. Remember "Candid Camera"? A show about catching people in confusing and embarrassing situations?

And let us not forget those who would argue that shows like "The Real World" are ruining the moral values of our youth by making their role models a bunch of drunken, over-sexed animals. That argument, of course, begs the question ... "Who's in charge of what teenagers watch at 9 or 10PM when such shows are on the air ... the kids or the parents?" There are many young adults and others who find that series entertaining who have a right to watch what they want. This attitude also begs the question, "Which came first ... the moral decline of society or unwholesome television programs?" Plus it's rather unlikely that young people will stop getting drunk and having relations just because "The Real World" is off the air.

In the end, as long as these programs don't break any laws, why not have as many as possible? After all, the number of available TV channels is already tremendous and there's no sign of that number doing anything in the future but increasing. So if you only like one or two reality shows, it's not like the others are taking up valuable channel space or anything.

If you hate all reality shows, choose from the multitude of other channels. There is some remarkably good programming on PBS, The Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel, Arts and Entertainment Television, and the list goes on. There are tons of Disney movies and TV shows from the 1960s to today on the Disney Channel, TV Land, and DVD!

I guess it all comes down to the fact that not everyone likes every type of entertainment. It's important to remember, however, that the main purpose of entertainment is to provide an escape from the demands of our everyday lives. Something to take the "edge off" once in a while. If watching a reality show does that for you, then it has achieved its purpose. If not, watch something that does or find a completely different way to relax.