Television is usually criticized for sleazy programming.

But now I have detected another failing: ingratitude.

In recent days, a parade of TV journalists and hired legal experts have bemoaned the refusal of Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki to permit the televising of the civil trial of O.J. Simpson.

They say the big loser is going to be the viewing public because we will miss an educational opportunity to watch a trial conducted properly.

That’s because, they say, Fujisaki is a strict, no-nonsense jurist who won’t let the behavior of lawyers or anyone else get out of hand. They compare Fujisaki’s hard-nosed approach to the more permissive style of Judge Lance Ito, who, they say, let the lawyers on both sides run amok in Simpson’s criminal trial.

How is that for biting the hand that fed you juicy morsels?

Of course the lawyers, especially Simpson’s, ran amok in the criminal trial. That’s because they knew the TV cameras were there and it was an opportunity for them to advertise their considerable skills at finding truth, seeking justice and thoroughly befuddling a mush-brained jury.

And Ito’s permissive approach is why TV had one of the liveliest and least expensive real-life soap operas in that medium’s history.

But now the TV types sneer at Ito for giving them what they wanted: a circus-like trial.

And they tell us what a treat we’re missing because we won’t be able to see an orderly legal process without lawyers and witnesses acting like ham actors.

Of course they know that if the cameras were allowed into the courtroom for the civil trial, about the only way the judge could maintain dignity would be to throw nets over everyone involved.

What really bothers TV is that it will have to cover the trial the way trials were covered before legislators and judges caved in to the lure of the cameras.

The TV reporters will have to sit in the courtroom, take notes, then write a story about what went on that day. Then they’ll have to stand in front of a camera and read it.

That isn’t nearly as dramatic as closeup shots of Simpson’s rippling jaw muscles or Kato Kaelin’s skillful impersonation of the village dolt.

It also becomes a challenge for all the lawyers who shelved their law practices to become TV law experts.

In the second trial, they won’t be able to explain the real meaning of what we saw. They’ll have to tell us what we didn’t see, which will take up a lot of time, then explain that what we didn’t see isn’t what really happened.

This is going to be extremely tough on the TV crowd because Fujisaki not only barred cameras, he ordered just about everyone involved – including lawyers and witnesses – to keep their mouths shut.

So there won’t be any more mob scenes on the courthouse steps, with Simpson lawyers tossing out fanciful scenarios about how the scheming police managed to get hold of Simpson’s blood – without his knowing it – and scattering drops in all the wrong places.

Now, because of another order by Fujisaki, it appears that they won’t even be able to accuse former Police Detective Mark (”The N-Word”) Fuhrman of planting the bloody glove, almost instantly arranging a massive frame-up and – who knows? – maybe murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman himself.

So, finally, Simpson is going to slide back to the inside pages and the tail end of the news shows, which is where the stories of street thugs belong.

And assuming that this time a jury is selected that pays attention to the evidence, rather than lawyers’ fantasies, Simpson will still be a free man.

But he’ll no longer live in a mansion or flash credit cards when he wants to buy something or fly somewhere. He might not even be able to pay his own greens fees, and who would want him as a guest?

Then he’ll finally slip off into the obscurity that he, and the rest of us, deserve.

After two murders, that might not be an eye for an eye, or even a tooth for an eye.

But for Simpson and his strange admirers, obscurity and empty pockets might be the worst fate of all.

---

Mike Royko is a syndicated columnist for Miami Herald.