TV Ownership Declines For Second Time Since 1970

bs0d3 writes "Almost every year, the estimated number of U.S. households owning TV sets goes up. Until now. This year, for the second time since 1970, TV ownership has gone down; by about 1%. TV ownership among the key adult 18-49 demo also declined even steeper, down 2.7 percent and percentage of homes without a TV is at the highest level since 1975. The reasons behind this appear to be online media content and the recession."

Comments

Obligatory from The Onion

[Mean Variance]

An oldie but timeless.

Man doesn't own a TV

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[garcia]

I own two TVs. I use one for DVDs, Netflix Instant, and OTA NFL games. The other is collecting dust in my bedroom, I really should have it recycled.

So while I own them, I don't watch much TV--at least not until it shows up on Instant. Because of that, and because of everyone else being totally obsessed with TV, it is very hard not to point out that I have no fucking clue what they're talking about when they tell me about "New Show 131". If you just nod your head and pretend they catch on quickly and ask "WTF?"

You're an idiot either way for not watching the "idiot box." :(

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Gaygirlie]

I own two TVs. I use one for DVDs, Netflix Instant, and OTA NFL games. The other is collecting dust in my bedroom, I really should have it recycled.

So while I own them, I don't watch much TV--at least not until it shows up on Instant. Because of that, and because of everyone else being totally obsessed with TV, it is very hard not to point out that I have no fucking clue what they're talking about when they tell me about "New Show 131". If you just nod your head and pretend they catch on quickly and ask "WTF?"

You're an idiot either way for not watching the "idiot box." :(

There's two TVs in this household too, but both are only used as display devices for PlayStation 3, PC and my tablet. None of them are used for watching actual TV - shows or such. Why? Because most of what is there is just plain crap and more annoying than entertaining. Watching TV is a terribly passive experience so if I'm going to sit down and just stare at the screen then I atleast expect it to be worth my time. Alas, if there even is a good TV show going it's always pushed to really late hours, it's shown only once a week, and there's only ever at most one, single good show running at any given time. Never more than one.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[garcia]

I guess I should have said I have it hooked up to a console device and I wouldn't have been modded into oblivion.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[mrmeval]

I don't own a TV. Last year sometime I had to stay in a Motel and did not have a laptop or smart enough phone so was stuck watching TV.

I was inundated in all it's excremental glory. During a 1 hr movie I was presented with 20 minutes of commercials from the TV network along with slide ups, drip downs, splats and other crap slathered over top of the show I was trying to watch all the while the cable company had an annoying bar at the bottom harassing me to buy merchandise that had nothing to do with the demographic of the show, was boarder-line pornographic and mostly annoying.

I'd been TV free for two years. It had been bad when I'd quit but there is no way in hell I'll go back to those one way slimy assholes who think they own my eyes.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[similar_name]

While broadcast and cable TV may be down in viewership the decline in TV sets probably has more to do with saturation. Pretty much everyone has a TV whether it's used for games, internet video, traditional shows or collecting dust. People are still staring at screens a lot, it is just now connected to a general purpose computer and it's not called a TV.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[reboot246]

I'm sorry. I don't care for the old "bread and circuses" crap called pop culture. Network television is a wasteland of rehashed sitcoms and stupid reality shows. Who needs them?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[0100010001010011]

There are plenty of excellent TV shows that have already had their run.

I just stared Farscape. I watched all of Smallville in the course of 3 months.

The only down side... you might get sucked in. Me and my roommate have watched the entire run of Spaced this week. It's full of cultural references and pretty good.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tepples]

People are still staring at screens a lot, it is just now connected to a general purpose computer and it's not called a TV.

But are they sharing the experience with other people in the living room while on a comfortable recliner or sofa, or are they forever alone in their own bedrooms?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you were modded to oblivion because you came off as a douche in the post. The reason The Onion story in the GPP that you replied to was funny, is because the guy in the article is a smug asshole which seems stereotypical for people who claim to not watch TV.

Because of that, and because of everyone else being totally obsessed with TV, it is very hard not to point out that I have no fucking clue what they're talking about when they tell me about "New Show 131". If you just nod your head and pretend they catch on quickly and ask "WTF?"

You're an idiot either way for not watching the "idiot box." :(

It is understandable that you seem frustrated that people talk about shows you don't care about. Many people feel that way, but the tone of disdain in the message makes you come off as smarmy prick. That is why you were modded down, not because you don't play games.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Mark Twain, Mozart, Picasso, Warhol, and all the other names considered to be "real arts and culture" started out as "frivolous and trite" pop culture. Pop culture is just the art and culture of the modern era, the rest is just that which has seemed to stand the test of time.

Just remember that when you are not being a pretentious asshole.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Randle_Revar]

It ain't a monitor until it does at least 1920x1200

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Telecommando]

Before the analog to digital conversion, I had 5 TV sets in the house. But I couldn't afford/justify the expense of replacing them all so I only bought 2 digital sets.

Now, over a year later, I don't miss the other 3 and have no plans to replace them.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Ltap]

One of the annoying things about this "issue" is that "TV" is treated as a single, discrete entity, when it is really three things: a) the device, b) the programming, c) the delivery system (e.g. cable, satellite). Many people in their 30s and above think of them as insepar

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[demonlapin]

Cable is putting out Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, and Game of Thrones, all of which feature interesting plots, very good acting, and engaging writing. (Dexter was pretty weak last season, but I've been pretty happy with this one.)

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[datavirtue]

I own one TV but only use it for watching movies via DVD. I have no cable or reception since I opted out of the digital receiver conversion thingy. I haven't had TV since. It is actually like breaking a drug addiction. You always think about it and wish you could tun on the news, but I know I'm better off without it. I only watched PBS before ditching it anyway, which is OK. The real issue isn't the recession OR streaming, it is a lack of notable or appropriate content. Seriously, all the network stuff was trash. When I did switch off PBS to another channel it wasn't for long.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[djl4570]

Back in 1982 the TV I owned died. I did without for a few years and didn't miss it. During that time I read lots of books and high quality magazines such as Parabola and Verbatim. Guests thought I was weird because I would leave back issues on the top of the toilet. I finally bought a small portable in 1986 so I could stop telling people I didn't own a TV. I wonder if the advent of entertainment media in the technological age is why SETI has failed to detect any signals. We are trapped by a vast wasteland of programming that is crap. Otherwise healthy minds zone out and atrophy while sucking on the glass teat. Perhaps alien cultures fell into the same trap. First it was television, then video games, then internet porn, then blogs and more porn and finally pontificating on Order 66 at Wookipedia. If I could do one thing over in my life it would be to get rid of the television when I was in grade school.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[hairyfeet]

Funny but I've found at least when it comes to the cableco my experience is quite the opposite, in that while I personally don't mention the fact that I don't own a TV the girls at the desk mention it constantly when i walk in. There always seems to be a new girl there and the others are like "That's the guy that doesn't own a TV" and the new girl is ALWAYS like "No, really, you have at least one, right? What do you mean no?" and when i point out that while I do have a capture card in my desktop I frankly haven't fired it up since 2009 the look I get, its just shock.

The hilarious part is the thing that seems to cause them vaporlock is NOT the fact that I don't actually own a set so much as I don't watch reality television which I swear the way they react I have to wonder if there is some hidden signal in that tripe that makes people addicted to that shit. Frankly I do NOT care who got voted off some island, or who was voted the best at singing some crappy old song and I sure the fuck don't want to watch anything called a Snooki. And when did the world start caring about such things? did I miss a memo again?

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[1u3hr]

You always think about it and wish you could tun on the news

TV is purely for entertainment.

I remember when I was in primary school, the teacher asked us some questions about "current affairs" and asked if we watched the news . I said I didn't, because it was boring, for which I was sneered at. Then he proceeded to ask some questions about specific issues in the news, which I answered. He asked how I could know that if I hadn't watched the news. I replied that I read the newspaper every day. To which he was silent.

I wasn't being a smartarse, I just had never considered sitting through the dross that passes for "news" on TV as a way to keep up. Now I use mostly the BBC World Service, and still read a newspaper on Sundays, the rest via web. Never watch TV news unless there's a particularly photogenic disaster.

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[Phoghat]

Shut the fuck up, simpleton.

And I JUST used up all my mod points too!

Re:Obligatory from The Onion

[tehcyder]

So you're all 1337 because you ditched your boring old TV, but now you watch even more rubbish, but that's OK because you do it on your computer?

Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because everything on TV now is absolutely shite.

Re:Or...

[ackthpt]

Perhaps because everything on TV now is absolutely shite.

Or it starts out good, but then they beat it to death.

Sponsors pay for the shows and should be demanding better, but then they go and try propping up something like the Simpsons for a couple decades because it's a safe bet for viewer share.

Can't win for losing.

Re:Or...

[antifoidulus]

But increased "sponsor time" is at least in part to blame for the declining quality, esp. of comedy shows in my opinion. When the Simpsons started, they had two and half minutes, or roughly 10% more show time per episode than they do now. The extra time gave the writers more of a chance to better pace out their jokes and had time for better B and C stories. Some of the funniest Simpsons moments are the B and C stories, but there is no way any of those could have stretched into a full story. Part of the reason I think they do some of the extended couch gags nowadays is that the A story isn't enough to fill the whole episode, but whereas in the past they would have had enough time to do a good B story, now they are forced to make up the gap using a couch gag as there is no way they could fit the B story into the time allotted.

Re:Or...

[nomel]

They're talking about the physical device, not the content.

I have a "TV", but I use it as a large monitor for my computer. The only difference between a large "computer screen" and "TV" with hdmi and vga ports these days is an integrated tuner and less emphasis on things like color accuracy.

I think their numbers are going to get more and more meaningless as time goes on.

Re:Or...

[mirix]

The commercials. Jesus Christ. When I very rarely watch live TV (say, at a friends house), I'm shocked by the amount of advertisements. How did people ever let themselves become subject to such shit?

I watch a few shows that I DL, and listen to public radio, if I listen to radio. Adblock on the web. Advertising is still stupidly pervasive, even with all that... Why would I pay to watch it?

Re:Or...

[JaredOfEuropa]

Where I live, there are still a couple of good current affairs programs, and I find that lately there have been a couple of very good series (most notably from HBO). TV isn't all shite... but some years ago I've discovered that watching TV live (not live tv) is an utterly rubbish experience. Well, I didn't really discover it; it's just that before PVRs made time-shifting practical and easy, there was no real alternative to viewing everything as it was broadcast. That meant wasting time channel surfing, waiting for your favourite show to come on, and sitting through endless, repetitive commercial breaks... I can't imagine how people were/are able to handle that crap.

I still watch a fair amount of TV, but it's all time-shifted. I can download the series I want to watch, and most of our TV channels have a rather good service for watching their shows of the past few weeks on-line. And I still own a TV to watch it all on.

Re:Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a look at all the adult fans of My Little Pony:Friendship is Magic. I watched some of it, and yes, it's aimed at 6 year olds, but within those limits on content and language, it's actually got characterisation and plots that make sense within the logic of the show world.
What does it say about modern television when a cartoon for 6 year olds is less condescending and intellectually insulting than the huge array of shows that are allegedly made for my demographic?

Re:Or...

[Macgrrl]

I still listen to commercial radio, but haven't watch live-to-air TV in I don't know how long, a number of years. We mostly consume TV shows via DVDs or downloads.

I see far more print advertisements (in the mail box, the free commuter newspaper and the local broadhseet's webpage) than any other source.

Re:Or...

[demonlapin]

There are still people who think that piracy might end up with them on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Really rich people don't care, and poor people won't be much bothered. But someone who makes $100k/year has a lot to lose and yet not enough resources to avoid being hurt badly by an adverse judgement.

And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[unity100]

'If it sold, rinse and repeat it' -> the same principle corporations employ in everywhere else including game sector is employed the same in tv sector for a long time now. so, we get shows that are repetitions of each other, totally geared towards keeping high ratings than viewer satisfaction nomatter what the cost in the long run (hence shows like american idol), creative talent getting tired (writers) of having to produce content too frequent and starting mold-cast repetitions and ...... you get the idea.

Thats also a reason why there is so much piracy. Shit is not even worth paying cents. There is so few content that actually is worth it, and they are being bundled with 100s of useless crap in order to bump up prices and sell everything over those few shows. A good example is sports broadcasts (only for popular sports though) -> bundle sports broadcasts with 100s of shitty channels and sell people. they will have to buy it for sports from those exaggerated prices. or, a few quality shows - all the same format. NO different than how music industry has been selling us albums containing sub-par 12 songs bundled with chart topper 2 songs for the last 2 decades.

Natural result of profit maximization of capitalist system - maximization eventually results in trying to achieve maximum possible profit with minimum effort in shortest amount of time, and you end up getting 'crap' as the product.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Yes, this is it.

I remember when the Discovery Channel was actually educational and even thrilling, showing a packs of lionesses hunting gazelles and whatnot.

Now, it's a bunch of bullshit "reality" shows which all could be titled something like, "Ignorant wooden-acting rednecks hamming it up while doing tedious or dangerous jobs." Seriously, the West Coast Chopper guys?

Disco, get your fucking cameramen back out to the damn jungle or rainforest. I want to see strange animals and their mating habits again.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[game kid]

So you're saying "ignorant wooden-acting rednecks" don't count as "strange animals"?

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[AlphaWolf_HK]

They still do, or at least Discovery as a company still does. Only difference now is that there are different channels with different Discovery related topics (I think there are a total of 6 different "Discovery" channels.) The one you're looking for goes by the name Animal Planet, and yes it is owned and run by Discovery networks, and yes it is rich with plenty of animal porn (not to be confused with bestiality.)

I myself am an avid watcher of Investigation Discovery, aka ID channel.

Re:And the shit that is broadcast in corporate tv.

[datavirtue]

wow.....on so many levels. "Here we see the north american fleetfooted flannel shod redneck about to make an attempt on this particular female........she's not having it, oh oh, oooohhhh, no one saw that coming!"

Reasoning

[dcray2000]

What's required to be on modern TV
- Be as cheap as possible and thus totally suck
- Continue previous statement, but add shocking situations or violence
- Tell a story that induces anger about everything that's wrong with the world
- Have a panel of judges review the performance of yet another reality star
- Cook something you will never eat, or see, or see before you eat
- Watch fat people get skinny

What's banned from modern TV
- Good Science Fiction or Fantasy (you know what I mean)
- Truly deep and telling story lines that make you think about the wonderous possbilities
- Show all the good things that are happening 100 feet outside your door 5,000 times more often than the bad

... I can't imagine why people don't have a TV.

Re:Reasoning

[eulernet]

You forgot:

- Always use a pessimistic point of view. Happiness doesn't drive audience.
- Use cheap emotions whenever possible. No emotions except sadness or joy are allowed.
- Hire fake audience to represent your audience in your poor shows, and make them laugh when you need (remember Pavlov ?).
- Give random (poor) people access to the american dream, by giving them shiny objects.
- Explain with lots of details terrible crimes. Morbid fascination everywhere.
- Let people believe that possessing objects lead to happiness, and do that every minute, to be sure that they won't forget (ads).
- Always paint the world in white and black (if possible black). Never use another color, it's too disturbing.

Re:Reasoning

[Ethanol-fueled]

- Tell a story that induces anger about everything that's wrong with the world

That's not true, they learned long ago that people buy into more shit when they're happy and distracted, where all experienced controversy is safely insulated from any parallel to the real world. All the shows with mass appeal that really say what's wrong with the world, like The Daily Show and The Simpsons, are funny.

Even the so-called "news" is nothing but distraction. Hey, don't pay attention to Rome burning around you, an attractive blonde girl was abducted in some state you don't live in or care about. Don't pay attention to the DOW dropping 500 points, 4 new McDonald's jobs were created last month! Oh, and you can sleep soundly tonight, because terrorist and pedophile plots were foiled, and that evil guy who was caught pissing in the bushes will get killed in prison.

Come to think of it, you are also wrong about the Sci-Fi - Star Trek: The Next Generation reruns play every weekday at 3am.

Re:Reasoning

[gman003]

- Hire fake audience to represent your audience in your poor shows, and make them laugh when you need (remember Pavlov ?).

Oddly, I seem to have developed Pavlovian conditioning such that, anytime I hear canned laughter, I push the off button on the remote. Wonder how that developed...

Re:Reasoning

[droptone]

Currently running or in production: Game of Thrones, Homeland, Louie, Boardwalk Empire and Breaking Bad (I can't personally vouch for it, but a lot of people whom I respect love it so I am quite confident that it is worth your time if you're remotely interested in watching good TV).

Ran in recent memory: The Wire (might be too pessimistic for your tastes but excellent nonetheless), The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Freaks and Geeks and Battlestar Galactica.

If you're interested in comedies then there are mounds more. Like with all things, there's a lot of crap with a few gems.

Re:Reasoning

[cbhacking]

Agreed. I would really, *really* like to give The Big Bang Theory a try. A lot of my friends recommend it, and in transcriptions or summaries, a lot of it sounds fantastic.

Then I hear a laugh track, and I turn it off immediately. Who the hell wants to hear that?!?

Re:Reasoning

[Larryish]

The Big Bang Theory uses a studio audience.

They record the audience laughter during taping.

They use that recorded laughter as a laugh track in post, to fill in places where several re-takes meant less audience laughter.

Also the show is f-in brilliant, laugh track or no.

Seems like a meaningless metric

[Meshach]

I wonder how much of a correlation there is between people watching the television and the number of people who view a given program? Just because the TV numbers are down does not mean people are not watching the show online, on their phones, in a pub...

I blame illegal immigrants

[demonbug]

First they took our jobs, now they are taking our TV sets!

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Samantha Wright]

The link is actually an ugly frame-wrapping news aggregator. The actual story is from Entertainment Weekly. For shame, submitter. For shame.

On the plus side

[nightfire-unique]

This can only be good news for North American politics. Die, TV, die!

Not Watching TV...

[ackthpt]

The shows which have appealed to me had dwindled to a few.

Then there was one.

Then there were none.

Television has become so many over-hyped, insipid or worn out shows. Last show I watched was 60 Minutes. Now if I can remember, it's on the radio. My television hasn't been turned on in 10 years. I used a TV card in my computer for a while. Now I read books, watch movies or get the few DVDs of shows which really were worth watching and view them in my own good time sans commercials.

I get antsy when TV shows are on, like I'm being bombarded with some some radiation and want to get up and out of the way. Probably something to do with writing. Something else to do with horrible actors - we don't have many quality actors, so many are there because they are young, look good or were comedians. Few really can act. I feel the combination of watching people terrible at the craft, mixed with uninteresting writing have failed to keep my attention. No problem finding things to do with the time, though.

The poll takers realized...

[damn_registrars]

... that indeed, there is nothing worth watching on broadcast TV. Cable is the easiest bill to cut out entirely, and would be the first I would axe completely if I lost my job (and of course that same demographic is also very much impacted by the crappy economy and high unemployment).

Computer monitors and gaming systems

[antifoidulus]

In addition to watching shows online, the ability to easily connect the XBox 360 and PS3 to a computer monitor has to be having a dampening effect on TV sales, esp. among the young. For less than $200, I can get a 23" LCD monitor that I can connect to my laptop for computing and watching shows online, and can connect to my console for gaming. Why on earth then would I want a TV, especially if I am living in a dorm or small apartment where space is at a premium?

Re:Fad

[ackthpt]

Ha! I told you so. TV is just a fad (says dead guy from the early 50s).

You probably mean Fred Allen, a great (nay, brilliant) humorist who hosted a radio variety/comedy show. He was well known for poking fun at Television and show characters, like Titus Moody the farmer saying he was doubtful of it, but had (by the early 50's) determined that Radio was here to stay.

Article is bereft of real numbers

[mad-seumas]

Household that do not own a TV set? Or households that own a TV set but don't have cable, OTA tv? In our case we dropped cable several years ago, still have OTA TV thanks to an antenna on the roof of our condo, but consume the vast majority of content through a computer hooked to the TV. So we own a TV, but according to Neilsen's rules maybe we don't own a TV? Maybe we just own a huge monitor? Maybe we don't qualify to be a Nielsen Family so we don't count?

Not Surprising

[monopole]

I haven't looked at a TV transmission in over a year, I only happen to have 2 monitors that incorporate receivers, cancelled cable over 5 years ago.

I either watch DVDs or streaming video. I do have a lovely home theater arrangement, with little or no time to watch it.

TV hit the point of diminishing returns a decade ago.

Re:some shows to check out

[bloodhawk]

He had already mentioned good sci fi and fantasy as being absent, no need to give examples of some of the current truly cringeworthy crap they are trying to push.

18-40

[Vyse of Arcadia]

18-40 is a pretty broad demographic.

What is a TV?

[Bent Mind]

After glancing at the article, I have to ask, what is a TV? From the article:

a few factors that could be at play, including more people watching TV shows online

So that tells me that a TV is not a video unit capable of displaying television shows. Perhaps they are referring to those old all-in-one units that had a television decoder built into the display? I have a 42-inch plasma display connected to a computer and home network. It is primarily used to view NetFlix, Hulu, and some light gaming. I also have a DTV tuner in a different computer on the same network. It can send video out to about ten other computers scattered around the house. Not a single display in the house has an integrated tuner. Does that mean I have zero televisions, or ten?

On a side note, I do laugh when I read Hulu's message that the current program is not viewable on televisions, then proceeds to display the show on my television.

Re:first post

[renegadesx]

Oh, my! Next it will be: In Soviet Russia TV owns YOU!

I thought that was America from the 1970's onwards?

The Slashdot Test Pattern

[westlake]

For those who never RTFA:

Meanwhile the rich get richer:

Homes with three or more TV sets will climb a notch to 56 percent.

UPDATE A Nielsen rep, after seeing media stories reacting to their report and chart, emailed to clarify that TV ownership has actually declined once before: In 1992, "after Nielsen adjusted for the 1990 Census, and subsequently underwent a period of significant growth."

or the articles it links to:

So, my story (below) about six-month-old Nielsen data has so far been picked up by the New York Post and Pat's Papers.

TV technologies on their way up include DVRs, which Nielsen estimates will be in 41 percent of homes in 2012, digital cable (51 percent) and HDTV (67 percent).

Also upticking: houses with three or more TV sets (56 percent) and time the average household spends in front of the tube or flat screen: a record 59 hours 28 minutes of TV watching per week.

Despite earlier reports that suggested people were unplugging, cable and satellite TV use has remained rock-steady in homes with TV (90 percent versus 10 percent of homes using rabbit ears).

For first time in history, TV ownership declines

These blog posts are a few paragraphs long and don't link to the Nielson report itself.

I would have liked to have had a look at regional and ethnic distribution --- our local cable service has gone multiingual and multicultural in a very big way.

There are a lot of ways to feed media to that big screen HDTV --- if you can afford (and have access to) digital cable, broadband Internet service, the video game console, the Roku set top box, and so on.

I haven't seen a shortage of programs worth watching. The problem is finding a program that everyone in the family wants to watch together.

Re:Right...

[Anarki2004]

I always thought that was Oceania. That, or maybe London.

You all missed the most amazing thing from that

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently it's not about the 1%ers, because 56% of us are rich:

"Meanwhile the rich get richer: Homes with three or more TV sets will climb a notch to 56 percent."

WTF?

Re:Intelligence Increases

[icebraining]

"I find television very educational. Every time someone switches it on I go into another room and read a good book."

-- Groucho Marx

What is the definition of "TV"?

[Grave]

How do you define "TV"?

If you mean a display device with a tuner built into it, then there are two in my house (old CRTs), neither connected to cable.

If you mean a display device that can be used to display content regardless of a tuner (such as via the Internet), then I have 12, not counting cell phones/iPods. (7 LCDs, three laptops, two CRTs)

If you mean a display device with a coaxial cable or antenna connection that is actively used for watching sat/cable/ota broadcasts, it would be a bit fuzzy in my case. I've got a single HTPC that is connected to an LCD monitor and also streams cable broadcasts to two XBOX 360s. So there are three display devices that can be used to view broadcast television content (theoretically four, as I have 4 tuners in the HTPC, but have not assigned the 4th to any other device).

"TV" as it existed as a physical device ten years ago, does not really match up to what is sold today. Most "TV"s sold today are really just monitors, as they often lack tuners.

I'm sure the numbers can be manipulated to show whatever the interpreter desires, just like "record" sales.

Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Gaygirlie]

This may not directly relate to the article itself, but how about trying to be a little bit constructive here instead of only offering criticism? What kinds of TV-shows or series do you view as being worth watching, worth your time? Are there some that you'd feel others might also enjoy and thus you'd like to recommend them?

I personally do not have any specific genre that I enjoy as I can watch mostly anything, it's the flow of the story and the believability of the characters and their actions that matters the most. Then again, as I watch movies most of the time and not TV-series I don't really have all that much experience on that field. I still do offer two recommendations that I personally feel that are definitely worth watching, and if you can afford it, they're sure worth owning, too:

* Breaking Bad: A high-school chemistry teacher in his 50s hears he has a lung cancer, realizes he has been an under-performer his whole life and wishes to be able to leave his family with means to get by even if he isn't no longer supporting them financially, and derails completely and decides to take part in meth-cooking business.
* Walking Dead: As if the name isn't already descriptive enough or anything, but, well, a small-town sheriff gets shot, is taken to hospital, is unconcious for some time only to wake up to a seemingly empty hospital and the rest of the town either empty or trying to eat him. From there, it's only downhill!

Re:Content worth watching, instead of bashing?

[Phrogman]

I agree about mentioning the good stuff on TV these days. Unfortunately it makes up about 1% of all the content currently being pushed out at us. I prefer to buy shows like this on DVD or download them, then at least I get the full show, and I am spared the endless advertising breaks. IMHO its the onslaught of advertising that is driving people from TV.

* Sons of Anarchy - the trials and tribulations of the members of a motorcycle gang in California. Its kind of soap opera-ish, but its got some great characters and a great storyline. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124373/
* Fringe - the best compilation of bizarre psedoscience I have seen, with a very convoluted plot that spans across all of the seasons. About the only thing I haven't seen them mention so far (as of season 3) is the Voynich Manuscript, but I imagine that's coming up at some point. John Noble (Denethor in Lord of the Rings) as Walter Bishop is hilarious. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/

Re:I have an additional theory

[Drinking Bleach]

I like to own movies I buy, rather than being covered by a "cheap" subscription service. I can happily plug in any DVD I own, be it a movie or even TV shows, and not have to pay for cable or Netflix per month.

The shows are not the point

[DragonHawk]

"Television [network] companies are not in the business of delivering television programmes to their audience; they're in the business of delivering audiences to their advertisers." -- Douglas Adams

(From "What Have We Got To Lose?"; first appearance in Wired UK #1, 1995; reprinted in The Salmon of Doubt)

Re:I have an additional theory

[captjc]

Judging by the TV-on-DVD section at Walmart, Target, KMart, most department stores, Best Buy, and the few remaining "book stores", I would say quite a few people still watch DVD. While Amazon Prime and Netflix are really tempting, I will probably stick with DVD sets for my TV show watching needs. I also like having a physical library,

Predicted by Star Trek

[Hadlock]

I was watching an old episode of Star Trek: TNG (on netflix... on a computer!) and they had revived some cryogenically frozen people from the year 2000 who were shocked that nobody watched TV anymore. One of the cast members explained to them gently that TV had been a entertainment fad, and died out as a passtime by 2040.
 
I'm sure TV audiences watching Star Trek in the late 80s who had grown up on a healthy diet of 4 hours a night of TV found that hard to believe, or impossible even. Looking back twenty years, it is looking more prophetic than ever.

Re:Predicted by Star Trek

[cashman73]

I was watching an old episode of Star Trek: TNG (on netflix... on a computer!) and they had revived some cryogenically frozen people from the year 2000 who were shocked that nobody watched TV anymore. One of the cast members explained to them gently that TV had been a entertainment fad, and died out as a passtime by 2040.

To be fair, if we had HoloDecks today, I wouldn't watch any TV, either,. . . ;-)

Is it possible

[Kevin108]

that viewership habits are regressing? Instead of the whole family having their own TVs in separate rooms, maybe more households probably have one TV for everything and that more people are watching together.

More likely it's the fact that TV isn't just on TV anymore. It's possible to download or transfer from DVR shows nearly just as soon as they've aired. They can then be watched on any myriad device from a netbook to a smartphone.

Okay, explain the BBC then?

[SmallFurryCreature]

The BBC has cheerfully dived into the abyss for years nows, farting upwards to accelerate its descend. Want to see what a thousand TV cooks look like? Just turn on the beeb. It will show you.

They even got so desperate that when they finally do manage to get a program that people watch, they run repeats off it during the same WEEK. QI, QI repeat and QI XL. Same with Have I Got News For You. Oh and both programs are now in double digits. Not because they are that fresh anymore but because there is absolutely nothing else that has the slightest appeal anymore. This all despite the fact people can rewatch it on the BBC iPlayer... what better way to advertise you don't have any content worth watching then repeating the same half hour program 3 times and adding material you left out the first time on the third run. Oh and then repeat the entire running between this season and the next.

And all this crap, without any advertisers.

If you don't believe me that cooking shows are out of control, they got a cooking game show that when it ends, immidiatly starts up again. There is no end to it.

And if it isn't cooking then it is some lightweight back into history program that glorifies everything and examines nothing.

Actually a dutch company

[SmallFurryCreature]

But I can see how you can confuse us Dutchies with a divine god. We are pretty amazing people. And humble.

Re:Actually a dutch company

[VoidCrow]

Stupid Sexy Flanders...

Re:Slashdotted already?

[Ihmhi]

Lets not forget that it was approved by a slashdot editor as well. This is yet another of many reasons why I don't bother logging in anymore.

Thanks for the clean link.

You don't get it man. They do this stuff on purpose. They deliberately misquote and mirepresent stories in order to generate discussion. It's all about increasing the traffic as much as possible! IT'S A CONSP- *hurk*

Ha ha. Just kidding. I enjoyed the story immensely. I live for reading Slashdot and it's masterful articles.

Re:I have an additional theory

[mikael_j]

I love this - when was the golden age of television that didn't pander to the lowest common denominator, didn't thrust into your eyesockets with advertisements, had shows of culture and integrity that challenged and invigorated its audiences? When was that?

Well, where I'm from the advertising laws have definitely gotten more relaxed in the last couple of decades (how many minutes are allowed for a specified length of programming as well as the number of commercial breaks allowed during that same length of programming and the allowed length of a commercial break). Not to mention the increase in product placements, sure there have always been product placements but not to the degree we're seeing now.

TV today is as good or better than it ever has been. There are quality shows with believable, complex characterization and multi-season arcs that don't always center upon the medical or legal system. Sure, they don't build radios out of cocoanuts or learn valuable life lessons on a Princess Cruise, but you can't have it all.

I actually think a lot of the current TV shows are very good (if you can just find them and manage to ignore the commercials), the problem is TV as a medium has turned more and more into garbage (at least from my POV as a Swede).

Of course, I don't even have a TV these days, I just download the shows I want to watch. This has also resulted in me thinking of US "30 minute" and "one hour" shows as being "20 minute" (20-22 minutes to be more precise) and "40 minute" shows.

BTW, I'd love to download the shows I watch legally (without commercials in exchange for money) but I can't. Really. My option if I want them legally is either to wait until they air here in Sweden so I can watch them on the TV I don't have or I can wait until the season ends in the US plus another couple of months at which point they may become available on DVD (add another two months for the Bluray version, not that I have a Bluray player). And since a lot of shows end up airing several months after they air in the US (which these days is due to local TV networks caring more about how they want to schedule shows than when episode become available) buying the DVD will quite often allow you to still watch the last few episodes of the season before they air in Sweden...

Speak Up

[ThatsNotPudding]

and remember when Congress was going to do something about loud commericals? I SAID, REMEMBER WHEN...

Re:I have an additional theory

[tehcyder]

BTW, I'd love to download the shows I watch legally (without commercials in exchange for money) but I can't. Really. My option if I want them legally is either to wait until they air here in Sweden so I can watch them on the TV I don't have or I can wait until the season ends in the US plus another couple of months at which point they may become available on DVD (add another two months for the Bluray version, not that I have a Bluray player). And since a lot of shows end up airing several months after they air in the US (which these days is due to local TV networks caring more about how they want to schedule shows than when episode become available) buying the DVD will quite often allow you to still watch the last few episodes of the season before they air in Sweden...

And obviously, the most important thing for everyone to consider is your instant gratification, to which you are absolutely entitled under the European Human Rights Act.