I blame Depeche Mode.

I know they weren't the first, but they're the earliest connection I can make to a highly disturbing trend in today's modern media.

Back in 1989, Depeche Mode released a concert film called "101". Half the film focused on live performances and backstage behind-the-scenes footage of the band as it toured. The other half of the film focused on a group of 20-somethings who were picked to follow the band around during the last stops of the tour. The reason for this becomes apparent early on: the members of Depeche Mode are somewhat boring off-stage. Part of it may be exhaustion from being on the road for so long. The fans on the other bus -- the "real" people -- are much more fun and interesting to watch. I admit that I thought they were funny and original, and yes, I wish that I had been on that bus with them, dancing to "Nothing" with Oliver's mohawked girlfriend.

Flash forward to 1992, when MTV began the process of "reinventing" itself by airing more and more shows and fewer actual music videos. It was the first time we viewers heard those now-familiar words: "This is the true story of seven strangers, picked to live in an apartment to find out what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real. The Real World."

Ah, "The Real World," the first of the "reality-based" TV shows. No scripts, no actors, just real people -- like you and me -- living in the real world. Well, OK, living in a way-cool loft in NYC that no real group of seven "normal" people could afford, all of them fairly attractive (even Heather, the zoftig rap artist, was a hottie), and with half of them getting a vacation in the Bahamas. I mean, that happens every day, right? Outside of that, though, the only "characters" we got to know on the show were what the "real" people presented -- and what the producers chose to air. It was the closest you could get to capturing what everyday life is like without resorting to spy cameras and hidden microphones.

It was a huge success, and to this day MTV repeats the formula, continuing to throw seven strangers into lush houses or apartments around the world to see what happens when people "get real." I could go into how, generally speaking, the whole premise of the show is pointless now because you have participants who grew up watching "The Real World" and who know what to expect. I could talk about how they added some things (like a "job" the seven people have to work at) and how some things stay the same (every season seems to have the gay guy or the lesbian, the angry black/white man, and the Christian/virgin), but that's not what I'm writing about today.

The popularity of "The Real World" was not lost on network TV executives, and neither was the minuscule budget required to produce reality-based shows. The genre was still lacking one key element, however, to make it a mainstay on the airwaves. MTV came closer to nailing it in 1995 with "Road Rules" -- basically "The Real World" but with people doing stuff together to earn valuable cash prizes.

There was a boom in primetime game shows in the U.S. starting in 1999, with the U.K. import "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?" Despite the big payoff of the show's name and premise, it was still a cheaper hour of television to produce than, say, an episode of "ER." Soon every network seemed to have a big primetime game show -- "The Chamber," "The Chair," "The Price is Right" with bigger prizes in primetime... hell, they even brought back "Twenty-One" in a attempt to cash in on this short-lived craze.

So on one hand you have shows involving a group of "real" people that are cheap to produce and can garner a fan base. On the other hand you've got game shows with big payoffs, that are also cheap to produce and can garner a fan base. It was only a question of time before someone put these two things together, before someone added the final piece of the puzzle into what we think of when we think of reality-based TV: a group of real people competing for big payoffs.

In the Summer of 2000, CBS aired a little program that combined these elements and became the blueprint of damn near every reality-based TV show made since. I'm talking, of course, about "Survivor." Start with a group of regular people (just like you and me!), place them in the wilderness, and put them through grueling competition for weeks, voting off members one by one until you have a winner who gets (zoom in on Dr. Evil) "One million dollars!" Now, I have never watched an episode of the first "Survivor" series, but I didn't have to be a viewer to be inundated with mass media memes from this show -- people threatening to "vote you off the island," wishing you had an "immunity" at the next corporate meeting, etc. There was no escaping the pop cultural hoopla around this show.

The success of "Survivor" created a feeding frenzy for reality-based shows -- "Fear Factor," "The Mole," "Big Brother," and an endless stream of "tasteful" series on FOX starting with "The Bachelor." It really didn't matter how original the shows were; even mediocre shows like "Big Brother" have enough of a following (and again, a low overhead) that they've lasted for several seasons.

So after two years of this, you'd think the whole "reality" craze would have played itself out and that the viewing public would like to get back to watching programs with scripts and actors and actual plots. Certainly reality-based TV was no longer capable of being The Next Big Thing again... right?

Wrong.

People were watching groups of strangers compete week after week for fortune, and in the process these people were gaining a bit of fame as well. So why not have a show where the grand prize is... fame?

"American Idol" came on the air in 2002. Take everyday people (just like... oh, forget it) and see who among them could be the next big pop star! They've taken reality-based TV and added the emotional impact of music -- not to mention the sadistic pleasure of watching really bad singers be humiliated by snarky judges. Since then we've had a revival of "Star Search," "Fame" as a competition-based show, and other shows like "Making the Band" and "Nashville Star."

So there you have it: a rough outline of the history of the recent reality-based TV craze, written by someone who hates the genre. I despise the fact that so much primetime television real estate has been taken over by reality-based shows.

I have never watched a single episode of any season of "Survivor" or "American Idol." I have never wanted to, nor do I imagine myself suddenly becoming a fan of either show. I will never watch "The Apprentice," "The Swan," "Temptation Island," "Celebrity Mole," "Joe Millionaire," nor any of the billions of other reality-based shows that are erupting all over the place.

That's not to say that I'm immune to the pull of reality TV. I do understand the allure of "human drama," that it can be interesting watching people act and react to challenges -- especially if you empathize with or despise some of those people. It also helps if the show is connected to something you are interested in (such as professional wrestling, which is why I watched all three seasons of "Tough Enough," or alternative lifestyles, which is why several of my friends watch "Mad Mad House." OK, I've watched a few episodes as well. I hope Nicole wins.)

But enough is enough. There are just too damn many of these shows on the air! Do we really need so many of them? How many groups of single people do we need to watch get whittled down to two or three before one is chosen... only to discover that the person doing the choosing is really a nun?

Some of you may be thinking, "Hey, he's admitted to watching and liking reality-based shows. So why is he ranting against them?" I'm rant- um, writing this piece because television is oversaturated with reality-based shows. They've become the quick-fix for ailing networks -- a sort of intellectual "out-sourcing" if you will. Instead of nurturing critically-acclaimed TV series like "Firefly" or "Wonderfalls" and giving them time to build a following, these shows get yanked off the air and replaced by cheap-to-produce reality-based shows -- and viewers eat them up like greasy popcorn at the Multiplex. If "The X-Files", "Quantum Leap" or "Cheers" were to air today, I doubt any of them would last a full season. (Hell, the geniuses at FOX would probably cancel "X-Files" after 4 episodes.)

I am extremely frustrated that new programs that I enjoy are being cancelled because they aren't immediate cash cows. Instead of having a TV schedule filled with intelligent, innovative shows like "Boomtown" and "Clerks," we're heading towards a new season filled with what works: four "Law & Order" programs and three "CSI" versions -- not to mention a plethora of old and new reality-based TV shows.

It's enough to make me want to pick up a book.

Joseph Prisco is a computer support specialist at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University. He watches far too much TV and, despite his closing remarks, loves "Law & Order" and is looking forward to "CSI: New York."