Ditto shows like Dateline, that used to provide in-depth information of current news events, now is about murderers, and taking 50 minutes to tell a story that could be told in 10.

In another perspective, why are televisions so non-decorative? They used to come in a nice cabinet or shell, that could coordinate with your decor. Now they are a black hole on the wall.

There are frames one can purchase with moving panals that hide the entire TV--make it look like a piece of art on the wall. I imagine they are super spendy and I often think how often are the panals ever closed? Entertainment is such a crap shoot. I can't imagine how they begin to pick what to spend money producing. I feel for children mostly. I adored Saturday morning cartoons. ALL (three) stations played children's programming from 7AM until noon. It was the best.

It's a wonder to me that there are so very many channels these days with so little worthwhile content. I'm talking about the normal plethora of yuck that the typical TV content provider supplies. Whether it's from a telcom company via cable or internet, or a streaming service (like YouTube TV that I use), all the same. Dozens and dozens of useless stations that, at least for me, offer nothing of interest. Our watching is usually limited to sports, sometimes the news, and sometimes events (especially musical ones). And sometimes productions from the premium providers like Prime and Netflix.

Back to the original unserious title of the thread, it's true that the large black rectangles found in most family rooms and dens are unattractive. The space can be made more attractive by applying a colorful wallpaper. Because the screens are flat, wallpaper is easily attached. If you're concerned that doing so can hinder use of the TV, as per the above, little or nothing will be missed.

Samsung makes a picture-frame TV and there are ways (I have no idea how) to display a work of art on the screen when not in use as a TV.

About what's on.... we watch so much less TV these days. I really really hate the true-crime re-creation style shows. And they all must hire the same person to do voice-overs. Yuck.

I learned long ago in mass media class in HS that contrary to what many folks might think, television companies' main purpose is to make money from advertising. That was before the internet and streaming platforms, but it hasn't changed very much in that regard.

That said, there are now far better offerings on streaming platforms than those cable relic channels listed in the OP.

My brother retired and took some consulting jobs - bought a couple of the picture frame TVs. Said as long as he had the extra money he may as well spend it. Mine are lucky to be dusted occasionally and No, they do not look like art.

I'm so disappointed on TV content any more. I have picked up a few things we've enjoyed watching food network. Comcast took NatGeo Wild with the animal photography off our line up but there are some interesting wildlife documentaries on BBC only on weekends. DH will often have one or all of the sets on sports or stock market channels so my own TV watching is almost nil these last many months. With what Comcast charges for internet and TV now, i refuse to add more.

A repeating slideshow can be set up to play on all but the oldest TVs without much difficulty. It can be done many ways.

I would find a constantly flickering slideshow, or having just one photo image displayed on the TV screen, more annoying than pleasant. I have the same opinion of digital photo frames, which are the same thing and the same result. I guess some people like them but I'd have to think that in short order, one would tire of the image or images and then ignore it.

" contrary to what many folks might think, television companies' main purpose is to make money from advertising. "

This is an odd sentiment. Why would anyone think it's otherwise?

Abt is a huge electronics and appliances store just outside Chicago (Glenview). It's displaying a hugely expensive 'TV' that is transparent except when in use. You see a minimal frame defining the perimeter of the space where a program appears when the TV is 'on'. When it's 'off' you see...nothing, just whatever is behind the space.

" contrary to what many folks might think "

Wow.....I thought everyone knew that.

I haven't watched anything on TV (including cable channels like those the OP mentioned) for about 10 years - I switched to streaming and DVDs only. Much happier, and much cheaper. I don't mind if some of the channels have some commercials, either, since commercials were never really the reason I switched.

"Samsung makes a picture-frame TV and there are ways (I have no idea how) to display a work of art on the screen when not in use as a TV".

That's what we have. It's the first TV we've ever owned and we seldom use it to watch broadcast TV. It's either streamed material or, occasionally, sports events. Even the sports we rarely watch live.

The art is available on a menu and is easily selected. It only shows when the room is occupied.

I guess my mindset is on youngsters, since I'm around school age kids and people under 20 all day - and most kids my HS class back were also ignorant of that reality. It seems many kids today are not being taught in school any more how to be media savvy. Most of the efforts seem to be aimed at limiting their screen time, not arming them with more knowledge about how they're being manipulated.

If it wasn't clear, I was referring to why there are so many seemingly useless &/or redundant channels nowadays. When you factor in YouTube, Tik-Tok and Reels, the amount of completely vacuous content has exploded.

Darn you, Walt Disney! Did he come first or did child-centered Americans usher in these Entertain Me generations after WWII? Who knew there could be too much leisure time?

" If it wasn't clear, I was referring to why there are so many seemingly useless &/or redundant channels nowadays. When you factor in YouTube, Tik-Tok and Reels, the amount of completely vacuous content has exploded"

Oh man. That isn't at all what you said. What you said couldn't with a ton of imagination and elastic bands be stretched into the comment above.

"It seems many kids today are not being taught in school any more how to be media savvy."

Media literacy is something I think is hugely important, and I wish there were more organizations that taught and/or promoted it.

Media savvy and media literacy are two different things. Media savvy is the know-how for dealing with the media in the area of publicity or promotion. For getting one's message communicated and hopefully spread.

I don't think media literacy is anything different from the understanding and insights of what to expect and how to deal with inputs and influences from others in society in general. That's something young people need to be taught to deal with and it's not restricted to "media". Whether it's the words of an extremist. a teacher, a friend or an overly passionate devotee of any kind, whether in person or communicated in a different way, doesn't matter. Being able to receive, think critically of and put into context any information, however transmitted, is a learned skill. One that, I should add, too many people seem to spend their lives without ever having learned.

We have a TV, I think. It may be in the attic family room, since I won't have a TV in the living room.

But I haven't watched TV in at least five years. I read newspapers and magazines, listen to podcasts, get my news from websites. Most of my news consumption is financial, economic, markets with a side of health and technology. That's a work thing.

We do watch movies at home. I set up the screen and projector in the living room. Eventually I plan to install a ceiling mount motorized screen and a ceiling mount remotely-operated projector. I like being able to have a giant screen when we want it, and nothing the rest of the time.