Perhaps it was the cheesy music, or maybe it was the artificial snow, but watching an ABC… Perhaps it was the cheesy music, or maybe it was the artificial snow, but watching an ABC commercial for “Nick and Jessica’s Christmas Special” last Thursday night made me feel rather uneasy, particularly about the quality of network television in recent years.

I then realized that this was not simply a quick promo for the proceeding hour; I remembered these ads popping up on the radio, in news magazines, and even during last week’s Monday Night Football. I figured that this was the symbolic end to quality network programming.

Throw in the towels — all we have left is reality TV and pop-queen Christmas specials! While some shows have proven to be genuinely interesting this season, most fail to spark even mild mental intrigue.

So as I lamented the scheduling of a Christmas special during a prime-time slot, I thought that surely another major network must have something valuable lined up against the dud ABC offered. As I typically do not watch much television because of the hectic schoolwork most of us college kids endure, I didn’t know exactly what shows to expect — though I knew from many years of TV Guide browsing that Thursday at 9 p.m. is THE coveted spot.

Well, CBS was featuring a “riveting crime drama.” I soon realized that this gun-and-run show was CSI, though I did not know which CSI it was because I had heard that new spin-offs were slated for this year. Apparently, there is now CSI, CSI: Miami, and CSI: New York. Rumor has it that by 2010 there will be a CSI for every metropolitan area exceeding 350,000 people.

Actually, CSI can be an engaging, mentally stimulating program that features forensic crime solving, but with three versions, the novelty wears off quickly.

Disappointed and somewhat disheartened, I decided that there would be no more television for the night. But just what else was out there polluting the airways that I hadn’t witnessed on this Thursday night?

A friend asked me whether I watched “The Real Gilligan’s Island” last Tuesday night. I had not, but this question made me curious. I figured that this show must be hazardously similar to “Survivor,” given the beach-front locale and the ditzy players.

So what was different about “Gilligan” and “Survivor?” It turns out that the participants of “Gilligan” are molded into the roles of the whimsical 1970s series, whereas in “Survivor” the participants must simply act like the fools they probably are in real life. The distinction between the shows blurs at this point.

Speaking of blurry distinctions, ABC has recently launched its much touted (yes, sadly it was) reality series, “Wife Swap.” A month or so later, Fox unveiled its gem “Trading Spouses.” Looking deeper into this coincidental anomaly, one would conclude that for Fox to emulate the ABC series, the network must have considered “Wife Swap” to be a golden success. To me, that says it all.

Fortunately, there have been a few glimpses of hope this season. ABC’s “Lost” has already developed a cult-like following and has critics raving over its mysterious premise. Surprisingly enough, “Desperate Housewives” is more than a sleazy soap; it’s an admittedly campy spoof of suburbia.

Beyond this, one is hard-pressed to discover quality television. Reality TV can occasionally cast out a winner, such as the earlier years of “Survivor,” but more often than not, the genre knowingly over saturates the market.

As for pop-queen Christmas-music specials? Just be glad Christmas only comes around once a year.