Emmy Poll: Was It Really That Bad?

My earlier Emmy roundup focused on the award winners and what they say about the TV business. But the Emmy show is receiving a flat-out horsewhipping from critics everywhere. (Check out the roundup on tvtattle.) Tim Goodman at the San Francisco Chronicle writes about them as if they were a travesty, an abortion, a war crime. "Take out full page ads in Daily Variety, the Hollywood Reporter and Television Week - and apologize. To the industry. And to viewers."

Oh, the Emmys were bad. The reality hosts were given little to work with and showed little ability to improvise. I seem to recall writing something in my liveblog last night about them killing my love for television. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of bad awards shows in my day, and I'm a little cynical about the notion that they can be expected to be, or are even supposed to be, "good"—at least in any sense that I'd recognize as such.

I mean, what did I want to see last night? An hourlong summary of the awards, followed by the two-hour season premiere of Lost, that's what. But that wasn't going to happen.

So I'll throw it to you, oh un-jaded, wide-eyed Tuned Inlanders. Was the Emmy program really as bad as all that? Was it the hosts? Or did this fish stink everywhere, and not just from the head?