Paul Graham, co-founder of VC firm Y-Combinator (funders of the iSchool spinoff PopCuts) recently wrote, "after decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they'd be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another."

Ok, so he's right - it's obvious that Internet technology provides added improvements to the television experience. It's easier for users to find the content they really want, anytime they want. There's more choice online, and much of it is free.

I agree that viewers enjoy interacting around broadcast media - but how are they interacting? I wonder how much of the interaction comes from users sending each other messages about what they watched. I think online social networks provide a forum for users to talk about what they like, and computer technologies mediate that communication well. However, I think that users who interact this way are mostly using the networks as a kind of "recommendation system." Basically, if there is a good program on old-school television or radio, users will suggest to others to watch it directly, or recommend things passively using "weak tie" networks like Twitter. Thus, I feel that it's not the social networking technology that is changing the broadcast game directly, but rather, it's simply exposing the lack of creativity and intelligence that has plagued network media for so many years.

It's an interesting, not groundbreaking article. Choice quote: "Now would be a good time to start any company that competes with TV networks."