Last Sunday, television’s brightest stars came out for the 60th Annual Emmy Awards. Cast members from today’s most popular and critically acclaimed shows were all dressed up for the big night. And guess what? Nobody really cared.

At least that’s what the ratings suggested. According to BBC, the ratings for this year’s Emmy’s were the lowest in the show’s six-decade history, with its 12.2 million viewers beating the low point in Emmy’s viewership in 1990.

It looks like stock prices aren’t the only thing that’s going down these days. Almost every major awards show’s ratings have plummeted in 2008. Which begs the question, why don’t people care about award shows anymore?

This year’s trend of low award show viewership started with the 2008 Golden Globe Awards back in January. However, considering that the stars decided to show solidarity during the strike of the Writer’s Guild of America, they didn’t show up for the ceremony, forcing the telecast to opt for reading off the winners with zero celeb guests in attendance.

But when the 2008 Academy Awards aired in March, the writer’s strike was resolved and all the stars showed up, only to produce a show that got the lowest ratings in Oscar’s 80-year history. In other awards news, the 50th Annual Grammy Awards ratings were down by nearly two million viewers this year, while the Tony Awards this year hit a 17-year low.

That brings us to the Emmys. Even after putting more of an emphasis on the popularity of reality television by adding a best reality TV show host category, the show’s ratings went in the dumper.

There could be easily identifiable reasons for poor ratings of a few awards shows. The Oscars’ films in the Best Picture category were all relatively low key, limited-release indie films. That could be remedied with a nominee like “Titanic” or “The Lord of the Rings” that actually had quality and box office clout. Don’t be surprised of “The Dark Knight” gets nominated, if only to salvage ratings.

As for the Emmys, the nominations were largely given to less-viewed cable programs. Broadcast television represented with nominations for “30 Rock” and “Pushing Daisies,” but neither are the television phenomena that “The Sopranos,” “Sex and the City,” “Friends” or “Seinfeld” were.

But I think the main thing that is hurting these awards shows is the public’s fascination with celebrity and interest in scandal over success. Awards shows used to be one of the few places the public could see stars as people instead of performers. But tabloids, celebrity bloggers and Web sites like TMZ.com feed the public’s hunger and make sure that we see the stars’ every move, good and bad. Now, people care less about the project Lindsay Lohan is doing and more about the person Lindsay Lohan is doing. The only awards show that really got a ratings boost this year was the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards, but that was largely due to the hype of the return of Britney Spears after last year’s trainwreck VMA performance.

Maybe 2009 will be a better year for awards shows. I hope that it’s not going to take the potential of nationally televised celebrity embarrassment to get ratings. Otherwise, shows that devote time to much-deserved recognition could soon be unrecognizable.