Boob-tube babble-on: why more TV is better TV.

• Author: Hazlett, Thomas W.
• Position: Column

Why more TV is better TV

HERE IS A PREJUDICE HELD BY ALL the wise in America: The so-called information revolution is just more of the same old same old.

It's a tune sung by Brace Springsteen ("Fifty-seven channels and nothing's on...") and a refrain penned by such noteworthy television critics as The Washington Post's Tom Shales. What all the inquiring minds want to know is, Just how sick are Americans that they will watch such... junk?

The truth is that our viewing choices have never been better. Take the current war cry of the conventional wisdom belly-achers: the press's fascination with the O.J. Simpson affair. Why not consider this a public spectacle worthy of prime time? A great athlete, blessed with all the successes and comforts modern society can bestow, accused of hacking his beloved to death--this is practically Shakespearean in its thematic appeal.

In fact, the coverage of legal affairs and sensational trials on cable's Court TV is superb. If one elects to tune into Lorena's or the Menendezes' or William Kennedy Smith's, the crime drama is in real time and the analysis of the legalities sublime.

Such networks are available because of one simple economic reason and one simple political reason. The economics of cable networks are distinctly different from those of broadcast networks because there are so many more of the former. The sheer abundance of coaxial cable airspace--a standard 450MHz system can easily pour 64 channels into your television set--makes each channel cheaper. Cable networks can now profitably narrowcast to hit small audiences with specialized shows. Least-common-denominator television has been replaced by niche programming.

That simple fact makes elitist critiques of cable television totally absurd. I may consider 99 percent of the video fare trash. But in a 500-channel environment, that still gives me five worthwhile selections for each time slot--four more than I can watch. TV's old world, dominated by the network three, would bankrupt a producer with an audience share of less than 20. Today, CNN thrives if it gets a 2. Consumer choice is skyrocketing, even as the amount of truly terrible stuff (read: someone else's favorite) explodes too.

In reality, the emergence of the 500-channel cable system will be the solution to bad TV. I certainly could use another dozen C-SPANs or sports channels to choose from. If that means that I have another 25 country music channels on the dial--hey, that's what programmable...