How YouTube saved TV: from farting babies to multiplatform sitcoms, the online video giant has it all.

• Author: Beato, Greg
• Position: Columns - Column

A HALF-DOZEN YEARS ago, when the growing complexity of shows like Lost and 24 was making great swathes of prime time all but indecipherable to casual viewers, YouTube emerged as TV for dummies, a gloriously dependable source of old-fashioned cathode idiocy. In front of the boob tube, you may have needed CliffsNotes to follow the exploits of Jack Shephard and company. Online, there was always a comforting array of farting babies, ironic cats, and awesome car crashes to entertain you.

Today YouTube still mainlines a vast and indispensable stream of brainless, throwaway entertainment into our culture, but it also has become more focused and ambitious. Bedroom ranters discovered the audience-building virtues of production values and consistent programming schedules. YouTube began supporting the efforts of its most popular content creators through an invitation-only revenue-sharing program. Companies such as Big Frame and Revision3 began to identify, develop, publicize, and otherwise support emerging YouTube talent for a cut of their earnings.

In October 2011, YouTube announced that it was partnering with dozens of premier content creators--everyone from Ashton Kutcher to The Wall Street Journal--to create 96 new channels of original programming. Instead of merely giving them a cut of the advertising revenues once their shows were up and running, YouTube reportedly fronted them as much as $5 million each to develop their programming; in total, it pledged $100 million to the initiative. A few months ago, the company announced it was partnering with more creators to produce an additional 60 shows.

Such developments set the stage for obvious narratives about idealism lost and the dissolution of authentic grassroots culture: "YouTube Alienates Amateur Users by Courting Pros," an October Reuters headline declared. But the ensuing article sidestepped the central irony informing the story. The so-called amateurs were upset because shifts ha YouTube's promotional efforts meant they were no longer getting as much traffic on the platform, which meant they were no longer generating as much income from YouTube's revenue-sharing program.

That "amateurs" have been making enough money on YouTube to complain about changes on the platform only underscores how much YouTube has empowered--and continues to empower--independent content creators. While many Internet companies have made it easy for individuals to distribute their creative work ha ways that traditional...