Ryva Brall wrote:
But the sheer number of awful shows is pretty hard to ignore.
There are more good shows, too. There are more shows, full stop.
Alan Sepinwall wrote a post last week
that there are currently too many good shows to keep up with them all, and that he sees that problem growing as more non-traditional sources start developing original material.
The proliferation of content may mean you have to wade through more crap to find the good stuff, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Sepinwall's article, strictly speaking, mostly explains that there is just too much for a TV critic to keep up with. He specifically says that "first tier" shows are still relatively small in number. The common phenonomenon of a show getting better as the format and characters gel over a season (or more,) is mentioned.
But one morething he mentions is the ever increasing numbers of serials, which require continuous viewing. The thing is, he doesn't seem to understand serialization, either in artistic or in commercial terms. His book, The Revolution Was Televised, repeatedly trails off lamely in its discussions of failed serials.