Hacker News Reader

Comment by Thriptic | Hacker News Reader

> Yeah, and there are reasons for that. Focus groups kill creativity with group-think, and TV reeks of it. Standards and practices and other varieties of self censorship mean TV shall fight forever with one hand tied behind its back.

I would actually argue that FX has produced a lot of notable content which has been novel and high quality. Examples would include The Shield, Fargo, Louie, The Americans, Sons of Anarchy, and Atlanta. HBO and AMC have also made outstanding content.

Where you tend to see groupthink yielding safe, predictable crap is the major networks like CBS, FOX, and NBC.

View on HN

Not all of TV sucks, and FX isn’t terrible. But given the commercials, TV feels like willful brainwashing in practice.

Consider the idea of paying for cable, and still watching commercials. It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.

Most Internet content providers have advertising, sometimes invasive based on my browsing history — YouTube, I am looking at you — to offset costs or rack up profits. Therefore, your beef with broadcast networks based on advertising is on shaky ground. There are many reasons to dislike broadcast TV vs. Internet content, but advertising cannot be one of them because both mediums have it.

I don't see Adverts online anywhere, I have no control of that with TV?

> advertising cannot be one of them because both mediums have it

Advertisers used to be in the dark about which half of their money they were wasting.

That let the media guys (journos, etc.) get away with some stuff.

No more. Delivery is the word.

>> It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content. No thanks.

Every streaming service works this way.

It isn't quite the same. You don't pay a video streaming service for your connection. You pay for a connection and optionally use it for a streaming service.

You pay for TV to watch TV, you can't do anything else with it other than view it.

> It’s sort of like paying for the internet connection and still paying for the content.

Sadly, this looks like it is going to be in future, see Netflix. It will even get worse when more content distribution companies start to argue you should not have to pay for the connection, as long as you only use their service, see "Free Basics".

One can argue that HBO was the Internet of the 90s.

They had a separate subscription and being a premium channel allowed them to experiment with content that would not be valid or even allowed on basic cable yet alone broadcast TV.

Don't forget It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Archer, or The League.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com