Rubbish programmes on many channels: why?

A question about : Rubbish programmes on many channels: why?

It is a long time since I watched TV, but I have good memories of Play for Today and the Dennis Potter dramas, and some great documentaries that really made you think...

Now with this new digital TV, all I can get is the most brain-numbing 'entertainment'. Designed to snuff out any thought processes in the viewer, and deliver us properly sedated to the advertisers.

Is this a problem with the technology? Or maybe it is a way to find the money to pay for the technology?

What do I have to do to get high quality TV of the kind that used to be available in the 1970s?

Best answers:

• The problem is choice - now there are many channels, splitting the audience up into smaller numbers, giving less revenue, giving less to spend on programme making whilst still making a nice profit margin.
  But if we did not have choice, then we would all stuck with just the big audience programmes like Big Brother, Strictly Come Dancing, Eastenders and other junk TV.
  To get high quality TV, the answer to me is:
  1 - record such good programmes that are on at awkward times (e.g., the BBC4 Japan series) and watch at normal times
  2 - buy DVDs of the few shows shows that are actually good but need a Sky subscription
• I agree with the OP, we now have a huge choice of cheap tat programmes that really are not worth watching, most of them dumbed down to cater to almost kindergarten levels.
  It is getting almost as bad as American TV, the adverts are now dominating the programmes and almost taking the same amount of airtime.
• As with everything, our memory of TV from decades ago is filtered by time and we remember (to state the obvious) only that which is memorable. We forget the dross and, believe me, dross there was in abundance.
  The big difference is that then (as weegie.geek has pointed out) we had three channels operating for 8 hours each a day. Now we have hundreds of channels operating 24 hours a day, with not much more funding from the licence fee or from advertising revenue. It's therefore hardly surprising that much of the extra capacity has consits of cheap filler and the surprise is that there's actually some very good stuff in there.
  I'd argue that there is just as much quality television as there ever was ( and possibly even more) but the much greater growth in not so good TV (filling most of the extra capacity) makes the situation appear different. The overall quantity of good TV is no worse than it was. It's the good:bad ratio which has deteriorated.
• I guess that the OP has never watched TV in the USA.
• I don't like the long long ad breaks, especially when I've only got a small amount of video tape left to tape something which is purportedly an hour long but which I know will only be 45 - 50 minutes plus ads!
  However, there seems to be a trend to make them less frequent but longer - I've noticed this in "Lewis" for example - which at least leaves time to make a cup of tea!
• I mainly watch recorded programmes on the Sky+ box.
  I get to pick and choose what and when I watch.
  It's especially handy when there are two things on at the same time; you don't have to choose either/or, but can have both.
  You can also skip the adverts.
  I mentioned Sky+, but there are freeview recorders available, so the facility is there too.
• Main reason I was so glad when F1 went back to the BBC. Even when I have been watching the last two races I was just waiting for an advert break to spoil things,
  When we went to Florida in the early 90s we were amazed when advert breaks happened without warning, no title up to show the programmed had stopped/restarted. Now it happens here as well and I find it very irritating
  Unless films are on a non-advert channel I wont watch, I would rather buy a DVD and watch more than once,and there is so much dross around that some days unless I watch the news channels the TV doesnt go on at all. Which perhaps isnt a bad thing
• television as a medium is dying anyway. soon all content will be on the internet. anyone with a website can be a broadcaster. why would advertisers pay for an ad break that no one watches when they could direct someone through the web to their own website - one click away from a purchase.
  those of us who work in television and have any clue know the days of television are numbered.