But generally across television, the effect of an absence of intellectual judgment-making has led to a fluffy, warm, fuzzy treatment for any activity which could be deemed "cultural". This would have happened even if we still had just three channels to choose from. 

Things are not helped by the fact that profiles of the creative great and good are made in an atmosphere of gratitude — first for the commission, and then for the subject's co-operation (in the case of Hollywood personalities, one is also at the mercy of powerful PR machines). Of course, if somebody is initially deemed worthy, then the incentive to reinforce this in the making of the programme is inevitably great. One thing this doesn't lead to is rigorous evaluation. The South Bank Show was often criticised for being too laudatory, but the truth is that coverage of the arts across the whole of television has become unthinkingly accepting. When the arts are not being allowed their special pleading, they are being indulged as the "happy-clappy" part of the news schedule. 

Similarly, just as the arts in wider society have become the most visible manifestation of political correctness, with funding policies dictated by the needs of social inclusiveness, so television coverage of culture is made within a particular mindset, a kind of group-think. It is not one which emphasises, for example, the dangers posed to the arts by a growing self-censorship in the face of radical Islam. There has been no examination of this. One colleague included a mildly critical voice in a programme she made about anti-war art and congratulated herself on her daring. 

No, arts stories are considered to be adequate now either when they are about what is currently hot, or when they are about bringing people together. This will carry viewers along for a time, but the jadedness already in evidence will surely increase, as will the danger that people will eventually lose interest altogether.