Okay, here’s a breakdown of the main points and arguments presented in the text:
Core Argument: The author believes moving the Oscars to a streaming platform (like YouTube) won’t necessarily increase viewership, despite expanding potential reach. the fundamental problem is declining interest in TV and the Oscars specifically, driven by the internet and changing entertainment habits.
Key Points:
* TV’s decline: The author asserts that TV is less popular due to the internet, with the NFL being the major exception. This means everything on TV is experiencing lower viewership.
* Oscars’ Lack of Appeal: The Oscars themselves aren’t especially compelling. People may not have seen the nominated movies, diminishing their investment in the show.
* Accessibility of stars: Celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Timothée Chalamet are already readily accessible on social media (Instagram, TikTok), reducing the need to tune into the Oscars to see them.
* Potential vs.Actual Viewership: While moving the Oscars online increases the potential audience, it doesn’t guarantee more people will actually watch.
* YouTube as a Possible Platform: The author acknowledges YouTube as a viable platform,but suggests the Academy might not like the results (implying possibly lower engagement or a different kind of audience).
* Irrelevant Movies: The author points out that many people haven’t even heard of the movies being nominated,further decreasing interest in the event.
Overall Tone: The tone is somewhat pessimistic and skeptical. The author doesn’t seem to believe the Oscars can easily recapture a large audience, even with a move to the internet. They suggest the problem is deeper than just the platform on which the show is broadcast.
In essence,the author is saying that the Oscars are facing an existential crisis of relevance in the age of streaming and social media,and simply changing where the show is aired won’t solve the underlying issues.
