Television

Forums: Tv, Entertainment, Television
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I remember back in the prehistoric past here in the USA we had three television networks. Four, if you count PBS. Plus, most major markets had two or three UHF independent stations which broadcast mainly syndicated re-runs. And -- know something? -- there was usually something worth watching on every night. Nowadays, with cable, we have available at the press of a button something like 100-plus channels and there is absolutely nothing worth watching. I don't own a TV any more. Don't want one. Television has finally become what then-FCC Chairman Newton Minnow called it back in the 1960s -- a "vast wasteland." Even the specialized channels suck. The History Channel presents total crap for anyone seriously interested in history. And PBS, in my opinion, has been going steadily downhill to the point where its main focus now is on shows like "Antiques Road Show" and "This Old House." I have nothing against either of those two shows but they seem to setting the entire tone for PBS.

How is it possible to increase the number of outlets so dramatically while decreasing the quality of programming so drastically? Your opinions would be appreciated.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 17 • Views: 4,776 • Replies: 64

Add cooking segments to that and I will add an amen.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

I still watch tv; mainly four shows before I hit snooze land. 1. Food network, 2. Law and Order, 3. Profit, and 4. movies on channel 501.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

here is the answer

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-07-18%20at%2010.14.42%20AM.png

It used to be that the channel runners got paid with ad sales, and the more people who watched the higher the ad rate thus the more money they made, so there was an advantage to having quality. Now they get paid for the most part by the cable company for showing their channel, and it does not matter how many people watch so long as it is enough that the cable company wants to run it. Content is an after thought, it is not important in the making of money. All to often quality costs money too, which would run counter to the financial interests of the channel runner, there is actually a financial disincentive to running quality.

0 Replies

I gave away my tv when I left California and never bought another as I had already pretty much stopped watching, having kept the thing for my niece's visits and for myself to watch VHS movies. That seems long ago now, but really not that many years ago.

I did like Antique Road Show and This Old House; rarely watched cooking shows and I've been a cooking nut for decades. What I most liked were some BBC and PBS programs way back when, which I took as intelligently done whether cultural shows or drama. I liked some movie channels available, when? eighties? Z, and Bravo sometimes.. they would have foreign or otherwise interesting films. Z didn't last long.

Now I'm into the internet or reading, fiction or non fiction; either way, with reading, I can construct my own scenes from the written words, and enjoy that, living color in my mind.

1 Reply

I criticize TV, but I watch free TV a lot.

0 Replies

quantity over quality...

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Add cooking segments to that and I will add an amen.

Double amen. Who ever heard of "celebrity chefs"? They're no longer chefs; they're just media celebrities.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

quantity over quality...

Precisely the problem. And who needs "reality" shows?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Region Philbis wrote:

quantity over quality...

Precisely the problem. And who needs "reality" shows?

The networks. They are super cheap time fillers, so that more money can go into management and owners pockets.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

How is it possible to increase the number of outlets so dramatically while decreasing the quality of programming so drastically?

If you start with the basic premise that "Quality programming" is only a percentage of total programming then the current result seems to be a pretty obvious result.

If you go from 3 channels (which is 72 program hours/day total) to 3000 channels (or 72,000 program hours/day) the odds are pretty good that the additional available hours are going to be filled with.... crap.

Let's be realistic here. Lots of that crap is stuff that wasn't good enough to make it to the major networks to begin with.

1 Reply

When i was a kid, we got a tee-vee, and we got one channel, on for 16 hrs. a day, six days a week. Sadly, there was often nothing on worth watching. Now we have more than 500 channels, and there usually is nothing on worth watching.

0 Replies

@Woodworker766,

That's all true, Woodworker. But my point is that back in the day when there were very few channels there was usually something worthwhile being broadcast on at least one of them. Now you can go for hours, days, weeks without finding anything watchable.

2 Replies

Below viewing threshold (view)

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

That's all true, Woodworker. But my point is that back in the day when there were very few channels there was usually something worthwhile being broadcast on at least one of them. Now you can go for hours, days, weeks without finding anything watchable.

If you did not have me on ignore you would have your answer. The beauty here is that you claim to be ignoring me because I am too stupid to listen to. The reality is that I am on ignore because what I say is too close to the truth for your brain to handle.

Later putz.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawk, Don't pat yourself on the back; you're not that smart.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

As a UK resident, I at least get the benefit of three decent BBC channels. But the greatest advance here is the "catch up box" which allows you to record past programs from any channel and skip the adverts. Having said that, the canned laughter on many US shows tends to consign them to the waste bin for me.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yes, I'm now an expert on pressing the fast forward to get through the adverts. I can now automatically press the correct button the correct number of times to whip it through at 64 times speed, which races through three minutes of ads in about three or four seconds.
Ads are convenient when one needs to go and spend a penny, but are now getting more frequent on non BBC channels here, I've noticed.
I've almost given up on viewing several channels, purely for the awful ratio of programme to adverts.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

I think there are several premium channel shows and series that are excellent. I am not looking for Shakespeare or Tolstoy when watching TV...just a light fare to pass a few evening hours unwinding.

Homeland, Game of Thrones, The Borgias, The Newsroom, Boardwalk Empire, Rome, The Tudors, Shameless...all offered interesting, if not especially realistic, production. Excellent acting (not an easy art)...direction, set design. Certainly all of those mentioned here are as fun, fulfilling, and entertaining as a decent fiction book.

I think there is a lot more out there of quality than you are seeing. But that may be just me.

1 Reply

I still think there's some very good programming on the telly. Peaky Blinders, Boardwalk Empire, and The Walking Dead are all brilliant dramas. Plebs, Toast Of London and Citizen Khan are all very good comedies.

I'm not saying there isn't a load of crap on as well, but it's not all crap.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

From my observations from my, admittedly, limited field of vision, British TV is far superior to its American cousin.

1 Reply

Television

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know