So you can't trust a Zook who spreads bread underneath!
Every Zook must be watched!
He has kinks in his soul!
That's why, as a youth, I made watching my goal.

Some what to be special and get attention in the social media age. they know something that other people want to know. They can connect themselves with the show or event. People do the same thing with celebrity deaths.

Actually, I do. The criticism in the article you did not read implies that art funding means no art (which is why countries with no arts funding or war or anything else have no art.) Art has never seen more involvement and output. Art is not in trouble. Even if it was, there are plenty of rich people out there…

How do you think kid's sports teams find coaches?

The amount of outrage is inversely proportional to the number of details you know about the story.

Do you think you would have heard about this if the writer got clarification? The story of all parties knowing it is a game is cute, but not especially notable.

The point is that more people are making and publishing arts. The costs of making, publishing, and selling art have never been lower. You can find nearly anything. You can go on patreon and find people getting money to make picture of cartoon foxes having sex. You can find an unlimited amount of music on youtube…

It is all true. If you hate "monied pricks", then you should be against Lear's bullshit. Because that is what it is. The arts are a feel good indulgence of the wealthy. All the benefits go to them. They get the tax breaks. They get the arts spending in their communities. They get to feel good about all of it.

Nice job proving any of it wrong.

He is picking a weird reason to be upset. Arts are more likely overfunded. Art is everywhere. Look to deviantart, soundcloud, youtube, patreon, and other sites for artists who are dumping out loads of work that most people don't care about. Gentrified areas are full of galleries, theatres, and performance spaces. …

It was a crazy time before internet, time shifting, and serious cable competition. "Cosby", not "The Cosby Show", had 16 million viewers in 1996. 16 million. "Simpsons" did not crack top 50 with 9 million households in 1995.

They want viewers. It does not matter how they get them. NBC had decent ratings last year, but a lot of that was football. You can't run football games every night. They need other shows that will get good enough ratings.

I don't know if the show has changed, but Penn Jillette, famous for comedy magic and yelling a lot, was on "Dancing with the Stars" and wrote this about it:

This post only cements status as ignorant member of wealthy elite.

Shouldn't it be the "no swimming' sign?

You can find some episode of "That's Incredible" strewn about the internet, but it does not appear to have been released for streaming.

The ads are what they are after. They don't care if you watch the videos. Steaming ads makes money.

People like tasting beer though, which is why stores offer taste tests for new products. Direct to consumer wine sales have been legal for while not and yet such sales make up a really really small portion of total market. This type of thing only works if people know what they want or occasionally decide to try…

Production of alcoholic beverages, including beer, is not energy or resource efficient (how much water is wasted to make one beer?). Larger companies could actually be better for the environment. They can produce more using less, buy technology to reduce energy and water usage, ship it more easily, and so on…

You are a member of the wealthy elite though. The world median net worth (ppp) would be a few thousand dollars. 70% of the planet lives on less than $10 (ppp) per day. Your daily lunch bill is their entire day's spending.