Having become similarly dependent on Hulu ever since Duncan Black sent us all there last summer to watch Bedazzled, I'm often yearning for a TV show/film that hasn't made it onto their list. And the way they organize the site, as with YouTube, feels more like the old days of BitTorrent or IRC, with their simple search functions not quite doing the job. (And I, like you, am a professional searcher of sorts: I often wonder if my practiced Boolean/Google skills aren't far more salable than journalism.) The false positives that come up, like the homepages own display, are far more along the lines of "50% Off on Organic Tempeh This Week" at a food co-op than a consumer product.

But in many ways, those vestiges of supposed escape from the Viacom world are part of the charm. And even as I resist paying $ to watch television, as a content producer, don't you shrug while the Viacoms get their share of the ads you don't watch?

-- Chris Lombardi

Why? Why even love the idea?

Yes, we have video and audio at our fingertips just about everywhere we go these days, but it has led to my generation forgetting - and younger generations never knowing - quality audio and video. Not just the format on which it is being watched or listened to, but the experience itself, where focussing on the film or the music, and that alone, has been displaced by half paying attention to a feature length film on an iPhone or sort of listening to music on an iPod, in between taking calls and sending email. Even the in-frame image on that HDTV hanging over the fireplace is littered by network bugs and annoying, animated graphics promoting the next show in line.

I guess this is the price we pay for having become an entire nation of spoiled brats suffering from ADD, in a world where Marketing has gone berserk. It's all about quantity at a cost of quality.

I never understand how TECHNOLOGY people don't own an HD TV. HDTV is a great piece of technology, and whether you have cable or not - HD picture and surround sound makes a tremendous difference when watching anything. There's no comparison between watching something on HULU or watching on HDTV in your living room.

The same people that don't own a television, rent DVDs, and download movies on the computer- that's fine... but they're missing out on a much better experience, as well as some high quality things that actually ARE available on television. Just like the internet, there is a lot of junk out there, but there also is a lot of high quality programming.

What exactly is it about tv that you are against?

So yeah, I refuse to defend the big media companies that have been ruining our political discourse by driving it to the lowest common denominator and consistently serve us luke-warm helpings of "entertainment"--I will not be sorry to see them go. However, I admit to occasionally enjoying a television program--and to get this fix, I turn to the internet...not Hulu, but to one of a myriad of free online streaming tv sites..just type in watch tv online and you will find more than you will know what to do with--w/out ads (using adblock). Perhaps I will return to pay format if the bullshit bundling used by cable companies to inflate revenues ceases--ie: if I watch comedy central, sci-fi, and pbs only, why should I pay $50 for Oxygen or E! and other crap I don't want? If people are turning to the web for free programming it is greedy media companies who are to blame for their own predicament.

With the end of analog broadcast?

I only wish that Mr. Farivar merely did not want to pay to see ads -- the current basic cable model. However, Selanit, he made clear that that is not his objection. He brought up the iTunes store himself, and did not like the idea having to pay money every month, based on the idea that all that money adds up.

He doesn't seem to realize that The Daily Show, for example, might well have more employees than Salon.com does (or, at least, FTEs). There are writers, on screen "talent," producers, graphics people & makeup. There are are camera operators, sound operators. The show has a booker. Those are just the one that I can think of, and I don't work in television.

Salon has a few staff writers, some regular contributors and and large bunch of freelancers. Add up the Salon part- and full-timers and you might not get as many full-time equivalents as just one show he loves whose destruction would be "awesome."

But he doesn't want to pay for any of them, spend a couple minutes ignoring ads or respect the constraints that allow the ad model to provide them the revenue to continue their work.

It is somewhat disingenuous for the writer to go on about how he wants television content for free, either using bitTorrent or Adblock Plus, especially when he's writing it on a site that is supported by either advertising or subscription basis. I'm guessing that Mr. Farivar gets paid by Salon to post here, and I wonder how he'd feel if the Salon editors came to him and told him:

You are producing great stuff, and people love to read it. However, since all your readers are not subscribers and are all skipping the ads, we can't afford to pay you anymore. Best of luck finding a new gig.

If you want good content, expect to pay for it somehow, be it time in watching some ads or open your own wallet. I suppose I should look at ending my subscription and finding a way to pull this content without seeing the ads, as it's apparently acceptable to this author and site.

TJefferson10 implies that I was defending big media companies. I respectfully ask that he show me where I wrote such a thing.

Acknowledging that content creators need to be paid for their work for the work to continue and that suggesting destroying all of their revenue models is idiotic is not in any way a defense of big media companies.

Between the money I pay for cable, the money Time Warner gets for ads run during the shows I watch, the money that the networks get for the ads they run, there's a lot of money being brought in. How much of that actually goes to the content creators? How much goes into The Daily Show, for example? And how much goes into production of the show, and how much to line the pockets of the various companies along the way?

Using a DVR, I don't know what network most of the shows I watch are on, or the channel number. I tell my DVR to record shows. I don't browse by channel to see what might be on right now, as I have plenty stored up to watch when I want to watch. For me, a less concentrated distribution system would be just fine. If these shows were posted online, bypassing the cable companies and without the backing of the big media companies, that would be fine with me.

I don't defend the big media companies. Rather, in the absence of alternatives I defend the revenue models that allow the shows I watch to exist. Only an idiot and a fool would write about how great some shows are, and then suggest that no one should pay in time or money to get access to them. If Mr. Farivar wants to suggest a better model, I'm all ears. But all he was writing about was how little responsibility he and his friends should have for supporting the shows they love. Whereas I think that I have a teeny tiny bit of responsibility, he thinks that he and his friends ought to have none.

The problem with that idea is that if was applied to everyone, these shows could not exist. As he surely doesn't want that, it means that he thinks that it falls on others, but not on him or his friends. That makes him and his friends parasites.

I don't love these ads. And I don't like paying for cable. I have no problem with fast-forwarding through ads. If something catches your eye, you can stop and watch it. But I do have a problem with just jumping over them, especially if you are not paying for the content in any other way. I am not saying that people have to pay attention to the ads. Rather, I am saying that if the ads are how shows gets paid for, let the damn ads run. If you can't put up them at all, go to iTunes or another online store. Or buy the DVDs. (Frankly, I think that buying, watching and then selling the DVDs is the cheapest route.) I've done all these things.

But Mr. Favivar is not favor of any of this. He has not written about the evil of big media companies. And so, my pointing out that he -- alone among Salon writers and contributors -- is such an idiot and a fool is not a defense of big media companies. Rather, it is a defense of accepting that we all have to do something to help the shows we love pay their bills, and those that don't are working against the shows' continued existences.