Sometimes I think we just need someone else running things.
OK, most of the time I think that.
Its too bad that the bottom line isn't quality and to just do what is right, instead of just what makes the most money.
As we all know, pleasing the masses does not assure quality, rather it assures the lowest common denominator; usually anyway. Its the old theorem all over again: "intelligence is inversely proportional to the size of the group."
So then I think, wouldn't it be nice, if they would institute levels of "weight" in their analysis? Bare with me here. Just as in pugilism (that's boxing for you normal people), where there are weight classes, so too there could be "weight" classes in the levels of intellectual (or quality) media and entertainment. Even though there are not as many individuals seeking higher degrees (or levels) of quality (or intellectual stimulation), they too could then see shows that would please and stimulate them. And they could be made to show that they are making money, WITHIN their "weight" classification.
Its quite obvious however, that this could never work. If only simply for the reason that the average standard of intelligence would eventually (and perhaps painfully) begin to rise across the viewer base. IF that were to happen, it would require even better levels of quality in each stratum of the viewing market.
Either, this would be the death of TV as we know it, or....
This would require the writers and producers (and sponsors) to need to increasingly produce better and better material for broad(cable)cast. And we all know its better to keep your audience in a state diminishing intellectual pursuits, requiring lower levels of intellectual stimulation.
Otherwise, you could eventually see the writers as not producing a level of quality beyond what the average viewer could produce. Worse still, those viewers would eventually realize this and perhaps turn to reading books, or going outside and playing tennis, or maybe doing something constructive or productive.
Tomorrow's Blog: Is God an Under-Achiever?