I don't usually watch awards shows--the self-congratulation pretty much sickens me. But I did see the final winners list from last night's Emmys. What we can tell from a cursory examination is how un-democratic television has become in recent years. The trend toward premium and streaming services is continuing at full speed. This seems to be at odds with celebrities' constant drum of equality and broad arts access and funding. Here's the breakdown:
There were 22 main categories awarded last night, with 130 total nominees. Of those, 55 nominees were from national networks and basic cable; this means 75 came from premium channels like HBO or streaming services like Netflix. Fifteen of the Emmy winners came from those additional fee providers, while only seven came from basic networks. Clearly, among nominees and winners, there is an imbalance that tilts heavily in favor of the least accessible television options.
There are still large sections of the country who only have access to limited television programming or choose not to purchase additional service providers. For many of the shows' honorees, one can only imagine how few viewers those programs actually receive in relation to the total viewers across the country.
For those actors, writers, directors, producers, and other celebrities in Hollywood who repeatedly speak of representing all people or telling underrepresented people's stories, putting work on channels or services fewer people actually watch seems a contradiction in the democratizing force of television. After all, how come none of last night's nominees were from PBS? If reaching all Americans with art and culture is so important, why exclude so many of them from viewing?
I'm all for premium services and streaming, and I purchase some of them myself. I do believe that most of the best content today does appear through them. However, we must realize that Hollywood's real incentives are clear: they choose to put money in their own pockets rather than share their art with the rest of the country. And then they give each other awards for doing so.
There were 22 main categories awarded last night, with 130 total nominees. Of those, 55 nominees were from national networks and basic cable; this means 75 came from premium channels like HBO or streaming services like Netflix. Fifteen of the Emmy winners came from those additional fee providers, while only seven came from basic networks. Clearly, among nominees and winners, there is an imbalance that tilts heavily in favor of the least accessible television options.
There are still large sections of the country who only have access to limited television programming or choose not to purchase additional service providers. For many of the shows' honorees, one can only imagine how few viewers those programs actually receive in relation to the total viewers across the country.
For those actors, writers, directors, producers, and other celebrities in Hollywood who repeatedly speak of representing all people or telling underrepresented people's stories, putting work on channels or services fewer people actually watch seems a contradiction in the democratizing force of television. After all, how come none of last night's nominees were from PBS? If reaching all Americans with art and culture is so important, why exclude so many of them from viewing?
I'm all for premium services and streaming, and I purchase some of them myself. I do believe that most of the best content today does appear through them. However, we must realize that Hollywood's real incentives are clear: they choose to put money in their own pockets rather than share their art with the rest of the country. And then they give each other awards for doing so.