Hahah it's dated in several ways... Yeah I know that's a horrible habit of mine--I could be less lazy and join all of my posts, but

*goes to plastic surgery thread*

The (original) aim of these networks was not to be divisive, but to answer the call of marginalized viewers who saw the lack of equal representaion on network TV. I think that was honorable, I don't see the original intent as negatively as perhaps you do. But I do agree that cable by its very nature of offering specialized programming birthed greed, suddenly everyone and their mother wanted their own station, and yes, superfluous and even redundant channels began popping up like chickenpox. The proverbial "400 channels and nothing to watch" and all that. I can't say that this is totally a bad thing though, because this is where TV is going... ironically, it won't necessarily happen on the "TV" box at all, but on the computer. Viewers are gaining more and more power to become their own network programmers as picking and choosing what you want to watch and when you want to watch it is becoming easier by the day. And as a black viewer, I am grateful for a network like TV One (that shows my favorite sitcoms and a great bio series like Unsung) while I can hardly remember the last time I watched BET. As an undercover fat ass, I can get in my Diners, Drive-ins and Dives, Man vs. Food, then hop over to G4 for my COPS and assorted college humor programming, and a half hour later, catch up with Dorothy, Rose, Blanche and Sophia. Intervention and Hoarders, I watch on my computer. I can't hate on cable, I don't think it's having a corrosive effect on society at all, it's just that there are a LOT of us out there with a LOT of varying interests. We can make our own little TV bouquets or what have you. The big 4/5 networks continue to suck at equal representation in their scripted programming, but even if they didn't, there just aren't enough hours in the day to address the many interests of viewers that reach beyond unfunny sitcoms and repetitive procedurals.

I don't think the media companies had some grand plan to divide America. In the 1970's, the average family had one, at most two, televisions and an entire family--mother, father, children of all ages, grand parents--would consume the same product may the programming be The Waltons, Good Times or Dallas. My main concern has been a breakdown by generational and class lines and our growing tendency to self-segregate. Show like Good Times or Cosby certainly served a 'public service' in that they familiarized white America with Black America. Today, a show like Good Times would certainly be placed on BET which must diminish, take away from our history of being a melting pot society. Also, for as much as I support the rights of the individuel, it seems like we are becoming a bit fragmented with out iTunes and 'ishows'. Radio, for example, united the dreams and goals of the 'Woodstock' generation but now, through self-selection, we all not seperate ourselves out by class, race, age, gender, ect. The same is true with television with what seems to be this growing notion that 20somethings can not relate to a 50 year old character--GH might be the best example of a soap utilizing such logic.

Media will only grow over the next decade but I do hope that a few networks maintain broad appeal and focus on diverse programming. An America in which each age, group, gender and race flocks to its own network seems a bit bleek.

Edited October 27, 201015 yr by Saving ATWT

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not, but it's posts like this that may translate into people not taking you seriously or caring what you have to say.

You don't know me, so how dare you make assumptions based on my viewing habits. Just because someone thinks a particular storyline goes too far doesn't make that person a bigot. In your world, do gay and lesbian people have to like everything associated with being gay? Do they always have to vote for gay politicians, etc. and if they don't then they must one of those so-called "self hating gays"? There are some people who are not defined by their sexuality, that just happens to be one of their characteristics. And then there are other people - and based on your immature response above, you may be - that are first and foremost gay and want everyone to know it and consider everyone else - even fellow gay people - bigots who don't wholeheartedly support anything and everything that has to do with the gay community 110%.

You don't happen to work for National Public Radio do you?

I simply quoted you and your own words, so, if they sounded condescending, that isn't my fault. This wasn't sarcasm but, instead, an opportunity for you to see, listen and reflect upon the chauvinism of your own words. Breaking a debate into 'you people' or 'you're the type of (insert: gay, black, woman) who is never satisfied' is far from civil and, in reality, is nothing more than a demand that another person see issues through your prism. Furthermore, if you had ever really read any of my posts, you would have realized that I do not see those who disagree with me as "bigots who don't wholeheartedly support anything and everything that has to do with the gay community 110%." In fact, my opinion has been totally opposite in that I've questioned whether it wise for any soap to present gay-themed story to a generally conservative viewership and defended people's right to flip the channel. Dixon, Marland and Bell wrote socially progressive story before the 'Culture Wars' and this breakdown along 'Tradionalist' v's 'Secular Progressive' lines. If you had ever read my posts, you'd never be branding me as some radical Act Up zealot and would would have noticed other posters criticize me for not being nearly zealous enough when it came to ATWT and OLTL taking risks on the cusp of cancellation.

To sum things up, you seem to have some issues to sort out. You're tone is just wrong for a place like this and has a lot of rage. No one has accused you of being a homophobe. I don't even have an issue with people who do not like gay story. I get what you're saying, overtly and in between the line: It's people like me who make str8 people hate gays. Firstly, it is untrue, see remarks above or past posts. Secondly, such logic is rather cliche and gets used on African Americans, women and other various minorities all the time. Thirdly, it is just messed up and sounds angry. You sound like a fustrated guy and I wish you the best with that. The angry str8 white male routine is so 1994 and the Tea Party even runs from you guys.

Edited October 27, 201015 yr by Saving ATWT

Mad men on AMC (not A&E) actually often gets lower ratings than the soaps--its high this season was 2.9 and I think it dropped down to 1.9. But it's a prestige show, wins huge awards, gets great demos, sells well on DVD and internationally and has put AMC on the map as a viable place for original programming and not just old movies, which was their goal.

I do agree that they need to start paying more attention to all viewers and not just that all important female demo--shouldn't they be happy to get anyone they can now?

So dated--We 30somethings are such old men! Mad Men gets the BMW money demo and, therefore, is considered a prize. The netwoks will never start paying more attention to all viewers and not just that all important female demo for a few key reasons. Remember that NBC and CBS syndicate a lot of daytime shows and want to link male and other demos to these other demos. NBCU does not want to compete against NBCU when it comes to selling Jerry Springer show and the topic of male viewers. Having a diverse, even fragmented audience is going to help the company's bottom line when it comes to pimping numerous shows ranging from Days to repeats of L&O. Also, there are certain undesirable demos such as people over 54, the unemployed, people on SSI/SSD that networks do not want associated with their network line ups. NBCU does not want those lawyer adverts asking 'have you been hurt on the job or injured due to a doctor's mistake' airing during Days which, even with low ratings, still garners a premium. In some ways, the networks have harmed their own soaps by producing talk and judge shows aimed at the lowest income demos.

BTW, thanks again for calling me cute but I have still yet to become a OLTL fan. Yes, I now watch the show now but will always be a bitter ATWT fan