When they started, channels like The Learning Channel, Discovery, The History Channel and National Geographic aspired to put on informative, educational shows. Then, at some point in their history, they all switched over to pumping out bottom of the barrel, exploitative trash aimed at the lowest common denominator like Extreme Couponing (TLC), Honey Boo Boo (TLC), Amish Mafia (Discovery), Ancient Aliens (History) & Doomsday Preppers (Nat Geo).
How is it that the most highbrow channels seem to have become the most lowbrow without stopping anywhere in the middle? Oddly enough, this phenomena seems to have afflicted formerly high brow channels much severely than more middle of the road niche cable channels.
So, is the Amish Mafia an actual reality show? And if so, how are the authorities not using tapes of it to build cases against members of this alleged “mafia”?
Lo, how the mighty have fallen. It might be more noticeable in the case of TLC and Discovery channel, but it’s happened all over. I mean, when E! carried the Kardashians, no one thought it was a big fall for them, y’know?
Which, these days, equates to “advertising dollars” in the majority of cases.
As I’ve said elsewhere: *Television is an advertising medium that occasionally shows less overtly promotional material. *When you think of it that way, many things about TV make more sense.
The idea that TV is an information or education or even entertainment medium that permits advertising was laughable by the 1970s and is positively idiotic today.
I don’t agree that this affected the highbrow channels more than the mainstream ones. MTV and VH1 are about as mainstream as you can get. When they started in the 1980s, they actually showed music videos but they only rarely do that today. I think you could make a shorter list of the channels that haven’t drifted.
Ask Oprah.
She had some lofty, well-intentioned plans when she started her network, OWN.
Now it is a mess and losing money and viewers.
If Oprah can’t stay focused and keep to her vision, how would you expect a lesser-known channel, without a huge celebrity, to bring in and keep the viewers?
Didn’t The History Channel become known as the “The Hitler Channel” when they started running nothing but shows about Germany during the second world war? I think I have a tinfoil hat with the History Channel logo on it somewhere…
You can probably add Bravo to this list. I seem to recall them back in the day being like a hipper version of PBS, showing a lot of independent films, music documents and British serials.
I will say that the Discovery Magazine for Kids is one of the best children’s magazines out there for science, and that National Geographic for Kids is one of the worst. NatGeo focuses on Nickelodeon and Disney commercial tie-ins, while Discovery devotes the entire issue to one scientific or historical subject (the Sun, Antarctica, Evolution, Egypt, etc) and gives a lot of information on it.
This doesn’t have much to do with the OP, but I did want to give a shout-out to the Discovery Magazine. It really is quite good.
While I’m sure its more lucrative for any one channel to chase the lowest common denominator, its sort of depressing that its more lucrative for all of them to do so. You’d think now that they’re all airing reality shows, it’d be more profitable for at least one of them to try going back to broadcast more high-brow stuff, rather then split the market for reality shows ten ways with nine other networks.