How can 'bad' TV be so good?

I love great TV. Shows like "the Shield," "The Wire," "30 Rock," and "Dexter" make it easy to appreciate why several critics have declared this to be a 'golden age: of television. I would find it hard to disagree. There are some great shows on TV.
However for every shining front, there is tarnished underside. the underside that I refer to is the VH1 show "I Love money," a pig pile of contestants who at one point sought a loving mature relationship with either Flavor Flav, Bret Michaels, or New York (herself a former suitor to Flav)
these contestants now have embraced their emotional vacancy and dedicated themselves towards winning $250,000. In fact knowing that these 'celebrities' have realized that they must have the fuel for fame, money itself, before the can truly achieve the fame they so desire has made them comically desperate. The 'game show' (now rechristened a "reality competition") that "I Love Money" becomes tragically embraces a contest more concerned with cameras and hot lights than actual competition.
The show has weeded out some entertaining characters, such as the dim bulb buffoonery of "Mr. Boston" and the middle-aged desperation of "Rodeo." However the competitor that seems to be the most fascinating is "The Entertainer," a New Jersey resident who at 29 still lives at home in a small basement room. He openly admits he's needing the money to escape his parents oppressive thumb, and yet he seems to struggle with his own motives throughout the show, hooking up with fellow contestants, playing the game with passion but yet still honest about the money as prime mover in his desire for victory.
The show is a mess, and the contestants have very little to endear themselves to anyone. However if you can make the bargain with your soul to sit back and watch them turn on each other like rats in a coffee can, its a brilliant way to spend 60 minutes on a Sunday night.