In the course of a day's work, a lot of really dumb stuff crosses my desk. Or my computer.
Which isn't surprising. I do, after all, write about television for a living.
Occasionally, however, I see something so dumb it takes me aback. Like when I recently saw a column by an alleged television critic telling us what the 10 worst shows of the upcoming season will be.
Unless you're a big believer in crystal balls and tarot cards, this is sheer baloney.
This evaluation was made on the basis of descriptions of pilots that have yet to be filmed. Even if all of them do go in front of the camera — and that isn't always the case, even after a network orders a pilot — there's absolutely no guarantee that all of them will make it on the fall schedule.
There's no guarantee that any of them will make it.
Call me crazy (I've been called far worse), but I like to actually see a show before I review it.
I'm not saying you can't get excited about an upcoming project based on the description. There are several pilots I'm anxious to see. That I hope turn out well.
And there are others that I hold out little hope for, given the synopsis, the producers and/or the cast.
But to review a show without seeing it is nothing short of dishonest. To call on networks to reject a show about which you know nothing more than producers, cast and a brief description is foolish.
Frankly, there are dozens ?— hundreds — of examples of what sounded like bad ideas that turned into hit TV shows. Including:
A few years ago, the thought of a singing talent show with a mean Brit as one of the judges sounded dumb.
"American Idol," anyone?
A multigenerational family comedy filled with familiar TV faces didn't exactly inspire great confidence.
"Modern Family" turned out to be hilarious.
A show about forensics that starred, well, nobody particularly famous wasn't exactly promising.
A decade later, "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" is still a big hit. And it spawned two spinoffs — both of which overcame scoffing by "critics" to become big hits.
The ultimate example may be "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Not only was it a show based on a bad movie, but — c'mon — it was about a teenager named Buffy who killed vampires. And her boyfriend turned out to be a vampire himself.
How much dumber could a show sound?
When that pilot showed up on my desk in late 1996, I avoided watching it for as long as I possibly could. OK, the truth is — I thought it was a sitcom.
When I finally shoved the tape in my VCR just before the January 1997 Television Critics Association press tour, I was pleasantly surprised. OK, I was shocked.
This incredibly dumb-sounding show was incredibly good.
It ran for seven seasons, garnering all sorts of critical praise.
Luckily for me, I hadn't done anything stupid like urge the network not to put the show on the air. Like tell readers it was going to be bad.
You never know.
And, call me crazy, but telling people that which you don't know is not only a huge disservice, but it can make you look pretty darn dumb.
And I look dumb often enough without using ESP to review television shows.
ROOM FOR DISAGREEMENT: Reviewing TV shows is not an exact science. A review is one person's opinion, and I don't know any two people who agree on everything.
As I've told people for years, if we all liked the same TV shows we'd only need one channel and I'd have to get a real job.
I don't mind if people disagree with me. I really don't. Some of my best friends are TV critics, and we have great fun arguing with each other.
But if you haven't seen a show, your opinion doesn't count.
I'm not suggesting you need to watch everything. That's my job, and I try to help you avoid wasting your time.
But don't tell me I'm wrong if you haven't seen a show yourself.
For that matter, just because we disagree doesn't mean one of us is "wrong." Different people like different things.
The world would be awfully boring if that weren't true.
e-mail: pierce@desnews.com