How interesting! These great minds you speak of, are they objectively great, or only subjectively? If they are only subjectively great, then why should a lazy appeal to them sway me? And if they are objectively great minds, then how does that not acknowledge my premise?

I'm teasing you, I do acknowledged that there are great minds, past and present, who disagree with me. And I trust you can acknowledge the same, there is no shortage of great minds who believed and argued that objective truth, beauty and merit really do exist. The question I have for you or anybody who disagrees is this: can you acknowledge the existence of media you don't like one bit but nonetheless acknowledge as having merit which transcends your own personal opinions? I can easily, I can't stand Shakespeare's Othello, and I simultaneously acknowledge it as possessing a great deal of objective artistic merit. For me, there is no contradiction here because merit is not a function of personal opinion.

That I acknowledge there are great minds on both sides of the debate means that I wouldn't treat it as a hard fact when talking about it in an online forum, which was the explicit point of my response.

Using flowery language does not automatically make you correct, and even if on the hard facts you are correct, it comes across as condescending and arrogant.

What you're saying, "There are shows on TV worth watching and the art form is still evolving, and one person not liking it doesn't mean that it is bad" would have come across much more cleanly if you had stated it plainly.