Tom Shales kinda sorta likes Lucy

The Washington Post's Tom Shales has an odd review of a DVD collection of Lucille Ball's series Here's Lucy, which I'm pretty sure I've never seen except for a clip of the now-governor of California asking her "Vhere do you vant to do it?" in an hilarious misunderstanding. Lucy's appeal has always escaped me, and I don't have anything to say about the series, but this bit of the article struck me as interesting:

But bad TV can be as revealing and as representative of its time as good TV. "Here's Lucy" was awful, but it was no flop, as Ball herself says in a promotional film that is one of many extras included with the episodes. In the film, made to pitch the series for syndication after its network run, Ball says the 144 episodes averaged a 23.2 rating and a 34 share, numbers that, if achieved today, would put a show in the blockbuster league.
[...]
Beyond all that, there's the elemental fact that a bad old TV show is usually more fun than a bad new TV show. It may be particularly true of sitcoms; in earlier times, writers couldn't stoop to smut for a cheap laugh when their wits otherwise failed them. "Here's Lucy," unlike a typical 21st-century sitcom, was filmed straight through, performed much the way a live show would be, with only occasional stops when someone blew a line or a prop malfunctioned.