The golden age of the sitcom has ended. Within a few years, “Friends,” “Everybody Loves Raymond,” “King of Queens” and other mainstay sitcoms left the airwaves, leaving a trail of studio audience laughter in their wake. Turn on the TV at any given time and you’ll be able to find a rerun of a serialized drama, either from the “CSI” or “Law and Order” franchises.

To many in the entertainment industry, there’s nothing funny about the current state of sitcoms. Very few appear on prime time. Is the sitcom dying — or worse, dead?

Ryan Vaughan, Ph.D., a Binghamton University English professor and television enthusiast, said network television’s laughs are gone for good.

“They’re dying,” Vaughan said. “Sitcoms are being killed by reality shows and procedurals. You can’t cite a quality sitcom and with what’s on TV, most people might choose ‘Rock of Love’ instead.”

But, Robert Thompson, Ph.D., the director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University, disagrees. According to Thompson, the problems networks are facing today are the same problems they faced during the 1980s.

“During the ’80s, there were weeks without any sitcoms in the top 20 and articles were declaring the death of the sitcom,” Thompson said. “Then ‘The Cosby Show’ came along and it invigorated comedy and NBC began its ‘Must See TV’ lineup. We’re facing the same situation today.”

Thompson said the reason sitcoms aren’t performing the way they used to is because the bar was set very high in the past.

“Back in the day, there was nothing to compare it to,” he said. “’Diff’rent Strokes,’ ‘The Facts of Life,’ they were all mediocre sitcoms but generations grew up with them. The same can be said for ‘Two and a Half Men.’ It’s by no means brilliant. It’s an OK sitcom.”

Vaughan echoed Thompson’s statement and added that when he was younger, there were only three networks to choose from. But Vaughan’s remedy for the lack of quality sitcoms on network television today is to look for it on paid cable. He included “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” and “Eastbound and Down” as examples.

“The best sitcoms right now are on cable,” Vaughan said. “They’re well written, the characters are developed and they don’t have to worry about the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] restrictions as much as networks do.”

CRITICS VS. VIEWERS

There’s a long history of critical acclaim not having any influence on viewership. “Arrested Development” is a prime example, along with current comedies “30 Rock” and “The Office.” Thompson said there’s a difference between what the critic is looking for and what the viewer is looking for.

“Critics are trained. They know the history of sitcoms and they have a certain criteria in which they judge these shows,” he said. “Viewers just want to be amused.”

Vaughan said viewers are demanding too much out of sitcoms because they don’t want it to be lame, but at the same time, they don’t want to think too much either.

“Audiences are finicky. Most people tune in to sitcoms to tune out. Most sitcoms are easy to understand and you know what you’re going to get,” Vaughan said. “’Raymond’ fitted that mold. But [with] ‘Arrested,’ if you miss something, you’ll end up confused and viewers don’t want to work at it. It doesn’t fit the formula audiences are so used to.”

Vaughan said “Two and a Half Men” is succeeding because networks are dumbing down the sitcoms and viewers prefer those sitcoms. It’s escapism, he said.

MONEY PROBLEMS

Vaughan and Thompson both agreed the reason why networks didn’t give shows like “Arrested Development” a chance was due to money.

“Going back to reality shows, they make money,” Vaughan said. “Sitcoms don’t. It’s easier for networks to make a reality show than a good sitcom. They’re going to put out what makes money. It’s playing smart.”

But Thompson stressed the fact that making money and good sitcoms go hand in hand.

“As cynical as it sounds, networks do focus on making money,” Thompson said. “But even if it’s garbage, it still has to be good garbage.”