Semi-defender of FNL s2 here. I actually liked the resolution of the Landry arc, and much of the rest of the season, but it was the weakest.

But you've goaded me into saying it one more time: I will never understand why people did not like Buffy s6.

Agree with TVDW's general point about polarizing seasons. Lately I'm finding I respect season 6 of Lost more the more I think about it. (Though at some point need to actually WATCH it again to see how it really looks in retrospect.)

In 1976, however, the US population was 218 million, about 3/4 what it is today. (In other words, if you're talking share, which I assume is what we mean when we mean "Mainstream"--a big percentage of people watching the same thing--the difference is much bigger.) Last week, the #25 show--Glee, actually--pulled an 11 share, where the #1 show, DWTS, had a 20 share. No offense to Canada, but in a country of 300+ M people, I don't see the argument that 10-15 million people = mass cultural impact whereas 3-4M = a niche. At some point, you're just comparing niches. Which, I would argue, is what people do today. You make a very good point that Obama is not worrying about the effects of The Wire on the body politic. He does, however, worry about the effects of Fox News and Glenn Beck, who gets around 3 million a day. (Political football 24 was never even a top 20 show, btw.)

Not saying audience size doesn't matter at all, but (1) it doesn't work like it did in the 70s anymore (e.g., shows like Beck's have impact beyond their TV airing) and (2) the historically brief anomaly, of the mid-20th-century, in which most people experienced the same thing at the same time, is over regardless. Yes, there will always be SOMETHING that is bigger than everything else, but by that relativistic definition, there will always be a "biggest mainstream show."

If you're going to measure by the yardstick of "mainstream hits" of the '70s, then I think you also have to acknowledge the fact that TV's biggest mainstream hits are, by that standard, not big mainstream hits either. You cite the cultural impact of 24: what was its audience compared with a hit drama of the three-network era? CSI's?

If the significance of broadcast TV is about sheer numbers of audience, then it's about absolute, not relative numbers--which means that, no matter how good or bad its quality, the most popular broadcast network show today will not have nearly the cultural reach of Too Close for Comfort.

FWIW, I don't think that's generally true of Michael Slovis in this case, particularly since he directs episodes of Rubicon as well. I think what you're seeing is a deliberate attempt at a sort of beige '70s look (they play up their influences like Parallax View) and an attempt to distinguish themselves from the glaring high-tech look of shows like 24. Personally, I love it, but in any case, it's a deliberate choice.