> Why not believe that the Media Monopoly (ABC, NBC, CBS) used their monopoly rents to make programming with lots of flourishes and quality?
It did for a certain definition of 'quality'. For a while, it raised the sitcom to a level of perfection few art forms ever reach, but if you don't like the traditional sitcom that means nothing to you.
Certain kinds of stories were told as well as they could be told, but the limitations of the funding model (mass media, so you can't piss off too high of a percentage of the general public; ad-funded, so you can't piss off too many potential advertisers; FCC regulated, so you can't piss off the vocal minority who whines to the FCC) prevented any other kinds of stories from being told well, or told at all.
prevented any other kinds of stories from being told well, or told at all.
Exactly my point. Jenna Marbles and Ryan Higa and all the others with millions of hits and zero production sort of prove that point. Youtube viewers watch the stories they like, rather than choosing from the least bad ABC/NBC/CBS show that's on right now.
Really? Not in my experience.
> Why not believe that the Media Monopoly (ABC, NBC, CBS) used their monopoly rents to make programming with lots of flourishes and quality?
It did for a certain definition of 'quality'. For a while, it raised the sitcom to a level of perfection few art forms ever reach, but if you don't like the traditional sitcom that means nothing to you.
Certain kinds of stories were told as well as they could be told, but the limitations of the funding model (mass media, so you can't piss off too high of a percentage of the general public; ad-funded, so you can't piss off too many potential advertisers; FCC regulated, so you can't piss off the vocal minority who whines to the FCC) prevented any other kinds of stories from being told well, or told at all.