So it’s a most or nothing situation? They need to be maximally broadly appealing? That sounds like capitalism to me.
I don’t care if only a certain percentage of people are into these channels. That should be just fine. It is just fine. And I’m not here to guilt anyone because they don’t like watching history shows or whatever else.
The economic model failed the audience of the original versions of these channels. It’s not society as a whole that failed the producers of the channels.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 week ago
“broadly appealing” means “human nature.” This is my point. Capitalism is just a good system to figure this out. You want stuff that appeals to you, as do I. But that stuff is boring to most other people. Most people like this drivel, unfortunately. You just want a system that caters to you, and your niche interests (ones we likely share, BTW). You just want the stuff you want on what is available to the broad public. . . .But why is that fair to the majority?
And you know what? With things like youtube, podcasts, and streaming (all thanks to capitalism, BTW), all of that is available to you. Just not on inappropriately named cable stations. Why do you care? Do you even get cable? Who does anymore? Even my pre-boomer dad has cut the cord.
Don’t get me wrong. Capitalism certainly has it’s faults. There are certain things, like policing, fire protection, and health care, that simply don’t fit into the mold of capitalism well. Even as a well off American, I’m all for strong socialism for many things, like what we see in Europe.
I just find the concept that “these aren’t the original intent of the channels. . .what a failure of capitalism!” to be kind of funny. Who really cares?