Your local television editor has been pondering this Roseanne Arnold-vs.-TV critics con-troversy.
And I've come to a conclusion that shocks even me - Roseanne does have a point.But just a point.
Now, I still find her as distasteful a personality as exists in network television. Her sheer vul-garity and often grotesque public behavior are about as off-putting as possible.
But she is right about one thing. There are some critics who carry their criticism into realms just as distasteful as Roseanne's antics.
(For those of you who missed it, Roseanne faxed obscene letters to three critics who panned her husband's new sitcom, "The Jackie Thomas Show," setting this whole thing off.)
In various interviews, including Jay Leno's fawning chat with her on "The Tonight Show" this past Friday, Roseanne complained that there are critics who go beyond the bounds of criticizing her work and attack her personally for her weight, her general appearance, her marriage, etc.
And I have to agree with her - a review of "The Jackie Thomas Show," which she produces with her husband, did not call for any comments about Roseanne's weight.
And she also has a right to be upset when words like "bitch" are used to describe her in print. That's just plain unprofessional.
However, Roseanne doesn't seem capable of distinguishing between cheap shots and legitimate criticism.
She also complained that critics (including me) commented on the fact that her husband is riding her coattails to fame. She even told TV Guide that such statements proved that critics were misogynistic and that what we were really saying was that she was too fat to be loved for herself, so obviously Tom only married her to get ahead.
What?
I can only speak for myself, but that thought never occurred to me.
Neither has Arnold been shy about proclaiming publicly that, using the clout that comes with "Roseanne" being No. 1 in the ratings, they basically bludgeoned ABC into not only giving Tom his own show but into giving him the post-"Roseanne" time slot.
It's OK for them to say it, but not for the critics?
And anything an actor does on camera is certainly open for criticism. When many critics - including me - wrote that Tom Arnold is devoid of talent, it wasn't because we personally dislike him, it was because we didn't see any evidence of talent on the screen.
And, like it or not, the couple's off-screen, public behavior is also open to criticism. Surely Roseanne expected to take shots for her crotch-grabbing and mooning.
It's also just downright inaccurate to say that Roseanne is treated altogether differently because she's a woman. Sure, she took criticism for her fax attacks. And there were a good many comments along the lines of, "Why can't Tom stick up for himself?"
But, to cite one recent example, producer Aaron Spelling was roundly criticized for threatening legal action against "The Edge" for a parody that ridiculed his "Beverly Hills, 90210" and, in particular, his daughter, Tori.
It's more than a bit silly for Roseanne to say that bad reviews threaten her future live-lyhood - particularly when reviews for "Jackie" were mixed.
Critics have hated "America's Funniest Home Videos" since the moment it came on the air, and that didn't stop huge numbers of people from watching it.
Actually, Roseanne herself has been a prime example of how critics have been able to distinguish between personality and quality. In my own case, I've been overwhelmingly positive about "Rose-anne," despite my own distaste for Roseanne.
WON'T DO IT: You'd be amazed at the number of calls and letters I receive urging me to comment on local anchorwomen's hair styles and clothes.
I just won't do it.
I'll comment on how they do their jobs from time to time, but criticizing their appearance is not within the bounds of professionalism, in my opinion.
CORRECTION: I had the right days but the wrong dates for the premieres of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and "The Untouchables" in Monday's paper.
The two-hour pilot of "Deep Space Nine" will be seen Tuesday, Jan. 5, at 7 p.m. on Ch. 13. The two-hour pilot of "The Untouchables" will be seen Tuesday, Dec. 12, also at 7 p.m. on Ch. 13.
I've enrolled in a calendar literacy class.
PICKUP ORDER: "Class of '96" hasn't even made it on the air yet, and it's already had four additional episodes ordered.
The hourlong dramatic series about a group of young people entering college debuts Tuesday, Jan. 19.
(I've seen the pilot, and it's surprisingly good - not just another "90210" clone.)
The four-episode pickup order brings the total order to 17.
UNCERTAIN FUTURES: Two ABC dramas face considerably less certain futures.
ABC has decided not to add to its 17-episode order for "Going to Extremes" or to its 18-episode order for "Homefront."
(A normal, full-season order is for 22 episodes.)
That marks both series as prime candidates for cancellation.
"Going to Extremes" is rumored to be headed off the air sometime in January. And, unfortunately, it would be no great loss. The creators of "Northern Exposure" and "I'll Fly Away" managed to come up with a dud this time around.
On the other hand, the loss of "Homefront" would be particularly disheartening. This excellent drama just gets better every week. It's too bad more people aren't tuning in.
Of course, maybe if ABC hadn't scheduled it opposite "Cheers" it might have found an audience.
NEW SHOW: CBS is sending "The Hat Squad" off to Saturdays at 9 p.m. as of Jan. 2.
And, in its 7 p.m. Wednesday slot, we'll be seeing yet another action series - "Space Rangers." But this one is a science fiction program brought to us by the producers who made the movie "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves."
There's no premiere date yet.
QUOTABLE: According to Entertainment Weekly magazine, Ned Beatty won't be returning to "Roseanne" to reprise his role as Dan's (John Goodman) father:
"I love John, and I used to have pretty good feelings about Rose-anne. But on a set like that when somebody becomes unreasonably powerful . . . it's like purgatory. It's ridiculous. Who needs it?"