It's no surprise that television audiences are looking away from the big four networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC) when they want quality, soul-preserving programming. It used to be that "network" was your only choice, and if you wanted to see Bo Duke in painfully tight denim on 'Dukes of Hazzard' you had to work for it. You had to orchestrate your life around it. That's pretty powerful stuff.

Drunk with power, the networks got complacent at the wrong time, as television soon began to expand quite considerably. The development of basic and premium cable channels offered a myriad of not only diverse and original programming but various delivery methods as well, giving the power back to the audience.

The networks are that crotchety old-timer, constantly ranting about how it was "back in my day," with an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, despite the fact that everyone keeps telling him its broke. Stubborn and delusional, they're still surviving based on the simple TV conventions of yore, and using reality shows to be able to say, "See? We're adapting!"

Cable TV (FX, IFC, Starz, Bravo, HBO, Showtime, Adult Swim) is the young upstart, ready to try anything at least once -- even 'Toddlers & Tiaras' -- in an attempt to change the game, egging the Network house and making fart noises while walking behind them at the mall. Cable just seems to be working harder to push the limits of what television can do, while the networks are working harder to maintain the status quo. But what can they do to change that ... assuming they want to in the first place? Here are some admittedly idealistic suggestions.

Less -- much less -- reality programming. I'm constantly talking to people about the "reality movement" and when, if ever, is it going to end. My answer is generally twofold. The networks are the chicken, continuing to air the shows, and we are the egg, lapping them up. It's impossible to place blame on either, but both have the power to stop it. Fewer reality shows might upset people at first, but it would change the culture of network television, and eventually individual tastes would adapt and evolve.

This is not to say that reality programming is all bad and is giving us all diseases -- those studies are still ongoing -- but take a look at what cable has done with reality programming and how it's much different than what you're getting on the networks. Cable reality is, for lack of a better term, more "real" (VH1 notwithstanding). Rather than putting real people into contrived situations ('The Bachelor,' 'The Apprentice,' 'American Idol,' 'The Biggest Loser,' 'Dancing With the Stars') for the sake of entertainment, a great deal of reality programming on cable tries to stay as real as possible, giving a glimpse into a cross-section of our society that we might not know about ('Gold Rush Alaska, 'Intervention,' 'Hoarders,' and all the shows about various cakes).

Having said that, the networks could use more shows about cake, and desserts in general, like ice cream or fudge. Cable has been a pioneer in cake-based television, and it's time for networks to stop stealing shows from overseas and start looking at home to steal our own sugary recipe for ratings success. Cake makes everyone happy.

The networks also need to get up to speed Standards and Practices-wise. I know this is not necessarily something they have much control over, but a lot of cable's success can be linked to what we are allowed and trusted to see. HBO, Showtime, and countless other cable channels have proven time and again that language and content can be pushed to tasteful and more authentic degrees. No one would argue that 'The Sopranos' of 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' are bad television. When content isn't manipulated gratuitously, but rather to a point, it can be edifying if not enlightening.

We're back to changing the culture of network television, and not assuming that audiences aren't ready for any accurate depiction of their culture to be thrown back at them. Networks pander, assuming that their audience won't get it, while cable challenges its audience to get it -- or at least be involved in the process.

It's sort of like the old "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." Networks got used to trying to make every single viewer happy, offending no one. That's a difficult habit to break, but it breeds homogenization and discourages the unique. Quality suffers with the more people you try to please. Trying to make everyone happy makes for a watered-down product.

To that end, maybe the networks need to reduce the scope of their audience, and make their initiative less about making money and more about not just pushing envelopes, but violently shoving them, full of fresh progressive ideas in the faces of viewers, exclaiming, "Here! Look at this! It's awesome, if you would just take a second to think about it and stop whining that 'According to Jim' is off the air."

If none of these suggestions work, or are even plausible, they could always just resort to softcore porn. It's one of the few things that I would watch D-list celebrities do on television, and if they could possibly get cake involved, that would be ideal. Cinemax has built an empire out of lubricated grinding, and sex is right up there with violence and language in areas that are underdeveloped on network television, relative to cable.

If television is a freight train careening forward at breakneck speed, cable is the engineer and networks are running alongside, complaining that cable won't slow down a little so it can catch its breath and maybe eat the egg salad sandwich its mom made. Networks need to get on board by any means necessary, before the entire train passes them by.


Dr. Vaughan teaches English/Media/Humor courses at Binghamton University in upstate New York, and he's a Leo. You can also check out his blog or find him on Facebook.