Maybe the people I talk to possess an intellect so far above that of the average American that what they consider “good” is mutually exclusive with what is “popular.”

Maybe the type of person overrepresented in my hardly scientific sample size[2] has inherently better taste than the average American.

Or maybe my interviewees are no more likely to enjoy high quality programming than anyone else; they’re just fortunate enough to be in the minority that experiences it.

I’m gonna save myself some time and rule out that first theory. Moving onto the issue of of demographics, it’s undoubtedly true that the people I know and meet aren’t a good representation of Americans as a whole or even TV watchers nationwide. For example, most people I talk to are relatively young, and folks over the age of 50 make up a proportionately large amount of the total measured viewers for many shows. However, I have no reason to believe that relatively young, primarily single Angelenos have objectively better taste than the population at large (though I’m sure many of them would disagree).

I don’t think there’s any kind of elite minority that knows what “good” TV is, leaving the vast majority of us to languish in ignorance and terrible taste. Since no one who enjoys both sitcoms and “The Sopranos” would argue that a laugh track-laden twenty-two minute episode is objectively superior to programming like “The Sopranos,” I think it’s fair to say everyone’s on the same page when it comes to determining “high quality” programming.

Last month’s highly-anticipated “Breaking Bad” finale had a record-breaking 10.3 million viewers. In that same week,“The Big Bang Theory” and “NCIS” pulled their usual weekly audiences of 18 and 19 million, respectively. A lack of access to premium cable in the majority of TV households would explain the unreasonably high viewership of network programs in spite of what I’m now calling universal good taste. But according to Nielsen’s cable channel coverage estimates as of August 2013, upwards of 70%, if not 80%, of households with TVs have a fair amount of premium cable channels, and 86% of them have AMC.[3] So people are watching network shows when they could just as easily watch better shows on cable.

The fact that people aren’t watching more high-quality programming is almost less alarming than the fact that two pretty good shows have almost twice the number of viewers an excellent show had on its absolute best day.

Alors, the crux of the issue: Why aren’t people watching more of what’s really good?

They almost definitely are, but only live views count.[4] A view is only a view if your TV is on during a program’s scheduled timeslot. All other kinds of views are either underreported[5] or unmeasured.[6] This makes sense or not depending on the type of program for which viewership is measured.

1. Measuring viewership for event-based programs like sports games and reality competitions makes a lot of sense. Knowing the outcome of a sports game or “who went home” on the latest installment of a reality competition greatly diminishes the entertainment value of these shows, so they tend to either be watched the day they air or not at all.
2. Only measuring live views makes sense for the most predictably-structured scripted shows as well. The enjoyment derived from viewing a sitcom or procedural as it airs is about the same as what you’d get watching it a week later. However, there’s not much incentive to watch this type of show later if you didn’t happen to catch it live.
3. The least time-sensitive programs are those with very loyal fans. They include long-running shows of any kind, shows with emotionally resonant characters and complicated plot lines, and programming targeted at a niche audience. These high-loyalty programs are most conducive to nonlinear viewing because their viewers will likely put in the effort to watch episodes nonlinearly if they can’t watch them live. For these shows, live views probably account for just a fraction of overall views.

Since shows with relatable characters and stories that unfold in surprising ways are widely watched nonlinearly, it seems fair to say that more people are watching more high-quality programming more often than we think.

Let’s use the “Breaking Bad” finale to see how program type dictates what kind of views are counted and which ones stay invisible.The finale aired at 9pm on Sunday, September 29. The Patriots/Falcons game on NBC started at 8:30pm and had 18.5 million viewers.

We can divide viewers for these two program types into one of five groups:

a) Households that only want to watch the event-based program.

b) Households that weakly prefer the event-based program to the high-loyalty show. Were it not for the concurrent scheduling and need to watch the event-based program “now or never,” they’d watch the high-loyalty program.

c) Households who equally value the two shows and want to watch them both. They’ll watch the event-based program live (because they can’t watch it any other way) and the other show later.

d) Households that only want to watch the high-loyalty program and watch it live.

e) Households that only want to watch the high-loyalty program and watch it nonlinearly.

Was that enough to convince you that advertisers and a monopolistic audience measurement company have manipulated our viewing habits to benefit unimaginative programming that panders to the lowest common denominator, often at the expense of whatever show is relatively more versatile? If not, and you still think a bunch of Chuck Lorre worshippers are to blame for the low quality bar of broadcast network fodder, see if you don’t remember a time you left your TV on while you were out walking the dog or passed out on the couch. Any time your TV is on and no one’s watching you’re contributing to the popularity of a dumb show that just happens to be on. So relax. And for the love of God quit hating on “2 Broke Girls.”