>>12454369>The shows you see are shows that sell, they are shows that have demand and people consume because they are useful for their entertainment.I'm not sure I understand your point. For several reasons:
(1) I never brought up whether these shows sell. Whether or not they "sell" was not the point of my comment.
(2) Strictly speaking you are incorrect. In fact, your claim verges on a logical fallacy. There are many shows that do not sell, and yet they may still appear on TV and other media outlets for some time. New shows come and go constantly. For example, a show that is still on TV might have dwindling viewership and could be scheduled for cancellation. In that case it obviously didn't "sell".
(3) Even if we assume that we are specifically talking about commercially successful shows, I still don't see how your comment could be relevant. Many old TV shows were commercially successful in their time. Many podcasts are successful today. Both older TV shows and contemporary podcasts have and are commercially successful. They are also both very different from the kind of "documentary" content you see on cable television today.
Whether or not contemporary cable TV "documentaries" are commercially successful is completely irrelevant. I understand perfectly well that many of these contemporary cable TV "documentaries" are successful, but that doesn't explain about why they're so different from programming that was available on cable TV 20 years ago or content that is available on the web today. The problems I am interested in are (1) why has this content changed so much in the last 20 years, and (2) why has it evolved so differently from content on the internet like podcast or even Netflix documentaries. Once again, popularity does not explain any of this. In a sense, popularity is actually what I'm asking about, because what I'm trying to understand is WHY this type of content has become popular. Your comment amounts to "its popular because it's popular".
