You don't seem to have a ...

Question: You don't seem to have a consistent position on whether offensive television is a good or bad thing. In your review of FX's Starved, you wrote: "Leading off the hour, Starved is, um, hard to swallow and possibly FX's most appallingly offensive series ever." However, in your Ask Matt column, you responded to one submission with: "What in the world does anyone tune in to Family Guy for if not to witness tasteless humor cranked into overdrive? I'd be offended if it weren't offensive." Why does Family Guy get applauded for its offensive content, but Starved gets criticized?
Answer: Again, different shows, different approaches, different effects. And besides, I don't feel I was applauding Family Guy necessarily by pointing out the irony of the situation, in which people were writing in this summer to say they were shocked, shocked by some of Family Guy's rude, crude gags — as in: What did they expect? I'm frankly a bit weary of that show these days, and have no argument with those who think it too often stoops for a cheap laugh, and don't get me started on the feeble American Dad clone. But Starved is a whole other animal, and while I almost admire it for going to such dark places, I ultimately find it painfully obvious in its approach and way too unpleasant to recommend. I almost appreciate the show for reminding me that once in a while, even I have a limit. I really don't feel I'm being hypocritical or inconsistent. I'm just calling them like I see them, and you can proceed at your own risk.