Bert Bailey asks: >Just what's the connection between the much less widespread access for all >of CM *out there* and TV now being a key determinant of what becomes part >of the public attention? Commercial television is driven by a single value - commercial demographics; i.e., how can a program deliver to a sponsor the largest audience with that sponsor's ideal demographics. Even "public" television caters to its own demographics (i.e., people willing to make contributions). TV doesn't determine what becomes part of the public attention, it responds to what the public wants to pay attention to. There's no cabal of "taste makers" plotting to dictate to the masses what they'll follow like sheep. The herd is quite capable of setting its own direction. In the end, it doesn't matter what people say they want to watch; what matters is what they actually watch, and TV programmers give people what they actually watch. A new show may receive great reviews from critics and "ordinary viewers" alike, but if its "share" ratings aren't competitive, it's gone. I've said this before and I'll say it again; the fraction of people in the population who are predisposed to appreciate classical music remains relatively constant, and low. These people will find the music regardless of what goes on around them. More "exposure" may help them find it sooner, but it will not likely alter the overall representation of classical music lovers in the population any more than serving sushi in school cafeterias will significantly increase the overall proportion of sushi lovers. len.