So many channels, so little to watch.

Especially if you’re not in the coveted 18-34 year-old demographic so sought after by advertisers who are continually told (or who tell us) that this highly-prized group of hyper-cool human beings prefers their TV entertainment to be “edgy” (which is usually a euphemism for mean or, at least, not nice). 

The result of this somehow socially-accepted corporate bigotry has been that shows with smaller overall audiences but with a higher percentage of 18-to-34 year olds tend to get renewed while shows with a larger overall audience but with a lower percentage of said viewers face the chopping block.  Even if, by the way, those larger audiences also include a sizable raw number of younger people. It seems to be the percentages that drive the network car — and percentages can be sliced and diced in many ways.

So, first we are trained to accept that 18-to-34 years olds are, in fact, more valuable to advertisers than other people (a demonstrably dubious conclusion). Then we are to unquestionably accept that they overwhelmingly prefer “edgier” programming.

That too, I believe, is a dubious conclusion. Just check out clips of some old TV fare on You Tube and scroll through the comments — many of which come from younger people. It’s clear there’s a healthy audience of all ages for shows with the heart of, say, a M*A*S*H  (here’s one: “I’m only 16, but this is? one of my favorite sitcoms. Goes to show how well good comedy lasts….”) or a Quantum Leap (“OMG, I love QL – I am only 15, but? I watch it everyday on ScFi Channel :D”).    

It’s been said that “figures don’t lie but liars figure.”  I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that ratings data, as currently used, isn’t so much about determining what the audience actually wants to see as it is about justifying what the elite media powers that be want to serve up.