Why on earth are we bothering to review this show? I can see the argument in an article about reality television, an article that relates back to reality television at large, or even an article that brings this particular show back to celeb-reality shows and comments on that. But really, a straightforward review of a C-list celeb's reality show?

There wasn't even (evidently) much to review. Paula goes about her day. She's a diva, but only a diva lite, so that's cool. And her dogs are sadistic, which - word to the wise - chihuahuas tend to be. Yeehaw. Sounds like good TV. The best the reviewer could say about the show was, "I like Paula." Good for you.

This is not Slate-quality reviewing. If a show is good, tell me why. If a show is bad, tell me why. 'It's good because I like Paula' is not a review. And, frankly, it doesn't sound like a good show even in this upbeat-and-friendly review. It sounds like a bad show. Why should I watch it?

Because I don't like her. Hell, I don't know her (betting at this point the reviewer doesn't either). And frankly, even if she's getting the camera to follow her around so as to make it convenient for me, I don't need to.

I agree completely; the review was almost painfully bad, with the reviewer focusing far more on making hip-sounding asides then actually, you know, writing a review. (Note to author: Chick-lit does not serve as a good model for movie critiques.) I'd love to make a few snide remarks here about how this is exactly what I'd expect from someone who chooses "American Idol" as their Ph.D dissertation topic, but I'll restrain myself.