As someone who has been in one or another meeting with German TV stations I can assure you this is not completely far fetched. The people deciding what is running at these stations are of the mindset (a translated quote):
> Our average viewer is 65 years old and watches TV while doing the dishes, we must not show things that cannot be understood by them
and then they will serenade about how they would "love to have a bit more sophisticated things", but as they are the only ones who really understand their audience, they cannot allow this, although they support the values of the 68 generation etc. pp.
From my standpoint the German television landscape is completely doomed, because the people at the levers are in the illusion they do the good thing for "the small man" while in fact they just think the small man is incomprehensible stupid and must not ever be confronted with content that shows them that there is still stuff to learn and understand in the world.
That is always the problem with data: it is reactive. Sure the average watcher is 65, and wants easy to understand stuff: that is what the data shows (I'll assume for discussion that is what the data shows, but I have no insight into if it is true or not). What the data doesn't show is if content would draw in day 25 year olds, they need several years of trying those other shows to see if it makes a difference - a very risky best that could run them out of business even if true (that is the older crowd stops watching faster than the younger crowd figured out it is worth watching meaning advertisers don't pay enough to keep producing content).
Of course TV in the US has figured out that the 65+ crowd is very valuable to customers (the advertisers, not viewers!), so even though they could get more viewers by not showing the nightly news, the nightly news is what they show.
This the same problem as interviewing people for a job nd collecting data about which “features” from interviews correlate with job performance… Without tracking the performance of any of the candidates who weren’t offered jobs—or turned down an offer.
Something, something, a diagram of a plane showing where the damage was on those that returned from missions.
> Something, something, a diagram of a plane showing where the damage was on those that returned from missions.
Ahahahah I love this dogwhistle. You always know you're in good company when someone waves their hands around and says "put the armor where there AREN'T bullet holes" and gives you a significant look. XD
In the US there's actually an FCC requirement that television channels air news.
From https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting: "virtually every station has an obligation to provide news, public affairs, and other programming that specifically treats the important issues facing its community." The details are specific to the license, but almost every station is required to air at least an hour of news a day.
It's unclear, because the exact details are specific to the license and therefore may vary from station to station. My local television stations usually air the news at 11, which is after primetime.
Reminds me of a thread a while ago pointing out that a single show dominates the MTV programming lineup almost every day [1]. It's as if there is some algorithm running without human intervention that feeds on itself by reacting only to current viewing habits:
foreach (show s in lineup)
if (s.viewers > THRESHOLD)
lineup.replace_with_more (s)
Obviously resulting in this weird local maxima where no other shows get broadcast.
I don't have MTV so I had to look up what "Ridiculousness" is. Apparently they play Youtube/Tiktok/etc... clips? Sounds like it must be incredibly cheap to produce. This is what it looks like when you let a race to the bottom continue on indefinitely.
And the cable industry can't understand why people keep cutting the cord. Can you imagine shelling out $120/month to have some producers pick out Youtube clips for you?
I went to a big box bar/restaurant a couple years ago, and they had a big screen TV playing basically what you describe. I wonder if that is the audience, subscribers using is as essentially something in the background? It's hard to believe there are enough that want this to make it economically viable...
This is precisely why the internet wins. It can both show the nightly news and a million other things at the same time, catering to a 60-year-old housewife, a 40-year-old car enthusiast, a 30-year old gardener, a 20-year-old fan of obscure Linux distributions and a Taiwanese 10-year-old kid living in Ireland, all at the same time. Youtube regularly recommends videos that I personally like, but that onlyhave a couple thousand views.
Well, you say that, but isn't that exactly why Netflix got rid of ratings?
All the documentaries were getting really high ratings, so would display highly in searches, but not many people actually watched them.
It's the same for most content, I read a huge amount. I do read some intellectual books, but only occasionally. The rest of the time I read utter, thoroughly entertaining, trash.
I don't want to read about an existential crisis after programming all day, I want someone to hit something with a big sword and get the girl.
> Well, you say that, but isn't that exactly why Netflix got rid of ratings?
> All the documentaries were getting really high ratings, so would display highly in searches, but not many people actually watched them.
This rather shows that ratings do work, but are used wrongly for giving recommendations:
If you want to create suggestions for a user, in many case the wrong answer is "suggest what has really high ratings", but rather "given the ratings that this user gave and the films that he watched, what will he also like."
The fact that these documentaries get high ratings (the same might hold for art house films) shows that there is some (niche?) audience which really loves this kind of films, but not that "John Doe" will love it, too.
I remember when that competition was released, I was working (as an undergrad) in GroupLens, which had MovieLens still around but it was getting a bit of bitrot.
It was always weird to me that GroupLens didn't spin up a team for it, but it seemed like everyone in the research group had moved on to other things and didn't want to context switch back. Someone mentioned something like "shame they didn't do this 10 years ago, a million dollars would have been nice". I think someone was doing tagging on movielens, but I don't remember the details.
I got the sense that neither Riedl nor Konstan (or any of the current grad students it seemed) wanted to pursue it (Terveen, I think, wasn't in to recommender systems at all in the first place).
I don't think the lab had any funding problems haha, so maybe that was what it came down to.
I remember my professor talking about the ensemble approach the competitors were taking in a data mining class I took. I was saddened when Netflix ended up not using it because it was too slow and expensive or something.
> This rather shows that ratings do work, but are used wrongly for giving recommendations
And I know I'm (possibly) a minority on hacker news, but I prefer the new system. I was giving everything I wanted to watch more 4 or 5, even when it was clearly not the case, but because I want recommendations of things I'm going to like AND actually watch
That is how it is with documentaries. Just because they are getting lower viewing numbers doesn't mean you shouldn't keep promoting them. Certainly there should be a mix of entertainment and public interest stuff, but following audience preferences for entertainment creates a feedback loop that damages society.
Things like documentaries are mostly watched by already well-off people (mostly middle class and up).
In Germany, public TV is paid for by (nearly?) every household. [0]
Forcing everyone, including poor people, to subsidize rich people's taste for documentaries seems a bit.. off?
Similar arguments apply to public libraries and opera houses, though at least there the financing is done mostly via progressive taxation.
Of course, you can argue that we sophisticated people know what's good for those unwashed masses, and if only they watched their documentaries like they are supposed to, they would soon see the light. Colour me skeptical.
[0] As far as I am concerned, private broadcasters can and should do what they feel like.
People choose from what is presented to them. That's consumerism. It's not like people get to pick what gets produced. If more public interest material is available and advertised, it'll get watched more. The alternative is to watch less TV and engage with society directly more. Both of those outcomes would be preferable to the excessive production and consumption of entertainment.
Private broadcasters do not pick material based on public interest or even their judgment of what is good. It is far more mechanical and influenced entirely by market forces. Herman and Chomsky discuss this in Chapter 1 of Manufacturing Consent.
> The alternative is to watch less TV and engage with society directly more. Both of those outcomes would be preferable to the excessive production and consumption of entertainment.
I agree. And economically, if you want less of a good to be consumed, ceasing to subsidize its production with tax payer money is a good first step. If you want to go further, perhaps even tax its production.
> Private broadcasters do not pick material based on public interest or even their judgment of what is good. It is far more mechanical and influenced entirely by market forces.
How do market forces differ from public interest?
Or rather, what do you mean by 'public interest'? It's what the general public is interested in?
Market forces tend toward baseness. It takes active intent to elevate society above the lowest possible level. Just as one doesn't want to hire at the median skill level of their company lest the average continue to drop over time, a society has to aim higher than what the impulsive market optimizes for, or it will decay.
Revealed preference is just code for exploitation of vice.
Well, when people complain about a growing wealth divide, and those who are doing okay financially say that childhood access to public libraries and documentaries made them who they are, shouldn't those things receive funding?
Receiving education isn't about learning. At least not primary. It's about getting a piece of paper at the end.
Public libraries and free internet resources are one argument in this direction. Another: professors are usually more than happy for you to sit in on lectures, even if you don't pay any tuition.
That's a bit like asking healthy people. You'll get answers ranging from things like exercise to homeopathy.
Answers from people can be used to suggest avenues for investigation, but shouldn't make you fund expensive stuff outright. (Assuming here that homeopathy is obvious nonsense, that people still swear by.)
And, of course, public libraries and documentaries don't have to just produce good effects. In order to justify public funding, you'd need to do a whole cost-benefit analysis and look at opportunity costs.
So look at what you get from public libraries vs libraries financed from private charity _plus_ whatever other good things the public money saved could do (including just outright giving it to poor people).
I deliberately picked public libraries here as a provocative examples. I suspect they might actually pass the cost-benefit test without too much contortion of metrics and data.
I am much less sanguine about the bang-for-buck of publicly financed opera houses, theatres and symphony orchestras, which Germany is quite fond of. And of course, publicly financed radio and TV broadcasters.
Without US public broadcasting, I and countless others would have grown up on GI Joe instead of Mr. Rogers.
Further, I generally strongly oppose charity as a component of future plans (leaving aside whether charity is good or necessary in the present). We should never be building society such that it depends on the funding whims of rich philanthropists.
Sure, there should be some kind of analysis of benefits, but some things simply have to exist for a society to be a society, because without them, the loss of their intangible and second-order benefits will cause a society to implode Idiocracy style, and nobody will know why.
On top of cost-benefit analysis, you will have to explain to everyone whose life trajectory was meaningfully improved by a resource what alternative path you are providing so that future people can also find their way to a better life.
When I was first living on my own barely making rent, PBS documentaries were the most interesting thing on broadcast TV. Infinitely more entertaining than drivel like the Bachelor. Other than available time and offered free content I doubt preference of documentaries is different among income classes.
Social class is correlated with income, but it's not the same.
Similarly, entertainment preferences are correlated with social class (and with income), but again, they are not perfect predictors of each other.
So a few anecdata wouldn't undermine anything here. Though in fact, your example actually strengthens the argument I am making: you are the kind of person that prefers watching documentaries over other drivel, and you are the kind of person who managed to get themselves out of poverty. That's likely because you have the preferences, habits and skills of someone who is at least middle class in a social sense, even if your income took a while to catch up.
(Keep in mind that we are talking about social class in a rather abstract fashion here. German middle class mores are different from American middle class mores.)
Wow, that is some overt classism right there. The world is a much better place is you just see people as people. Everybody is trying to achieve the same thing regardless of their "class". Security and safety for self and loved ones by whatever means are available to them with their skills and knowledge.
How many of these documentaries are actually public interest though? Versus propaganda by someone with an agenda to push under the guise of intellectualism?
Off course the so called "social issue" documentaries are nothing more than propaganda often created by think tanks or publicly funded "opinionators", these are very rarely not a waste of money and attention. It doesn't take away the fact that nature/science documentaries (if produced well, with sufficient funds) can capture imagination of a general knowledge of the layman public.
> It's the same for most content, I read a huge amount. I do read some intellectual books, but only occasionally. The rest of the time I read utter, thoroughly entertaining, trash.
I feel the same way. However I force myself to read things that will better me once in a while anyway. I too want to hit things with a big sword (without the pain of getting hit), and get the girl (without cheating on my wife), but the world including me is better if I do something else anyway. Which is why I do sometimes read a complex math book.
On the other-- we have a network that bills itself as educational and spends over a month marketing a full week of programming dedicated to propagandizing its audience to be maximally afraid of sharks.
It broadcast a wildly popular movie where a tornado full of sharks attacks a city.
German TV could be an order of magnitude worse than my parody and it still wouldn't even register on the American scale of stupidity.
It reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) reasoning behind the cancellation of "Police Squad" back in the day: that people would have to pay attention to get the jokes.
I stopped watching TV more than 10 years ago because I was worried to turn stupid from it. Not so far fetched after all.
There are some high quality shows and TV stations though. Namely Phoenix (similar to PBS in the U.S.) and some of the news magazines that run in the late evenings. Of course there are also all the other public stations with higher quality programs but I find the program most of the time quite random and sometimes even a bit elitarian.
> Our average viewer is 65 years old and watches TV while doing the dishes, we must not show things that cannot be understood by them
> because the people at the levers are in the illusion they do the good thing for "the small man" while in fact they just think the small man is incomprehensible stupid
So basically they have a Hacker News mindset!
In every thread about a dumbed down GUI/website it is argued that granny wouldn't understand it otherwise. No power user allowed, because data shows user is monkey.
> > Our average viewer is 65 years old and watches TV while doing the dishes, we must not show things that cannot be understood by them
I haven't watched german TV in ages, but I distinctly remember science shows degrading from science to thinly veiled ads - things like literally running a companies marketing video or making a "scientific comparison" where they hand out random style points at the end to make a specific product win. I think they even got into trouble over it since ads and science/education shows are taxed differently. Anyone pretending that they are doing that for their viewers is living in denial at best, but probably just outright lying.
The '68 generation' is pretty much the same generation that's now 65 years old and washing dishes..
> From my standpoint the German television landscape is completely doomed, because the people at the levers are in the illusion they do the good thing for "the small man" while in fact they just think the small man is incomprehensible stupid and must not ever be confronted with content that shows them that there is still stuff to learn and understand in the world.
Well, that would be more bearable, if half the TV market wouldn't be allowed to essentially tax everyone to finance their drivel.
> Our average viewer is 65 years old and watches TV while doing the dishes, we must not show things that cannot be understood by them
and then they will serenade about how they would "love to have a bit more sophisticated things", but as they are the only ones who really understand their audience, they cannot allow this, although they support the values of the 68 generation etc. pp.
From my standpoint the German television landscape is completely doomed, because the people at the levers are in the illusion they do the good thing for "the small man" while in fact they just think the small man is incomprehensible stupid and must not ever be confronted with content that shows them that there is still stuff to learn and understand in the world.