Hmmm. Well, here is the report about what he originally said at the August TCA event: In the AdWeek report of his whining at that event we were told: Since then he is continuing to beat that drum. And that drum is “There is simply too much television.” Let's have a reality check here. In 1960 ABC, CBS, and NBC. They bought a certain volume of programming. They still do. But in the 1980's some fool added Fox to the broadcast networks. So the programming increased. Without Fox the number of shows in broadcast television would not have increased. Except, of course, PBS started giving us some original BBC series programs. Of course, in that period there was the development of both regular and premium cable channels. They bought programming. And now there's streaming channels like Netflix and Amazon buying original programming. And Acorn TV gives us even more access to Brit series plus Australian and New Zealand TV. All this is because we have more channels feeding us shows. Without the channels, there would be no shows. That's the reality check. Either he's saying there are too many channels or not. The shows don't come to me in my dreams at night. The writers, directors, actors, etc. aren't on my payroll. They're on the payroll of someone who has to sell the show through a channel. If you read this article further down, you begin to get a sense of Landgraf's source of irritation: In other words, he believes the show failed because there was too much available for folks to watch. Except I watched the first episode than tried again further into the season. Didn't like it. Comedy is far more a personal taste. I would rather watch an episode of "The Middle." What can I say? What he's ultimately complaining about is change. Broadcast and regular cable TV need ads. To get ads, they have to have an audience. Here's where it gets real. I'm still paying an arm and a leg for satellite TV service. But a funny thing happened. With the end of a bunch of shows on HBO and Showtime, I decided to "cut the cord" for those two premiums because I could get them far cheaper streaming. I went to the Dish website and in each case when I clicked I was offered those channels cheaper than they are available streaming. That's because they are their own competition. It was News Corp with Fox that forced through the $5 a month mandatory charge for each and every cable and TV subscriber. All of a sudden we got Netflix, and then Amazon, and even ad-free HULU, and ...well... why exactly again am I paying to watch ads on FX, or worse, paying a monthly fee to watch nothing on it if I don't like their programming? Les Moonves, on the other hand, has entered the streaming market with ideas. Showtime for $8.95 a month. CBS All Access with ads for $6 a month with the new "Star Trek" coming in 2017. Just two channels. He doesn't whine about too much television or competition. He's evaluated the market, carefully weighed the economic model alternative, and is slowly edging into 2020. He understands it is his market to lose. We didn't need FXX. And, in fact, the small amount of original FX programming could be simply a nice addition to HULU or a News Corp ad-free streamer. But it would be an absolute. If I didn't want to watch it, I won't pay for it. No Rupert Murdoch taxing me for crap I don't want. We don't have too much TV or too many scripted shows. We have what all those channels will pay for. Sure, there will have to be a bit of a retrenchment from time-to-time because shows like "The Comedians" couldn't find an audience. But I'll fight through my keyboard any idea that fewer shows is better. I'm sorry of all those critics can't find the time to watch everything and occasionally get blindsided. But it is not in the public interest to make their job easier by not buying scripts. By the way, a Rupert Murdoch employee saying there's too much competition - surely someone at Fox News had to grimace a bit.