They suggest that there is more to popular enjoyment than meets the disdainful eyes of some intellectuals. Both those who criticise and those who praise elements of popular TV shows rest their arguments on their own readings of the implicit meanings of these programs. Each side in the debate can say something plausible in praise or condemnation of the shows, and neither can claim a greater degree of empathy than their opponents with the audience whose engagement with the shows is under discussion. The argument about peoples' use of fantasy and adventure programs has taken place without evidence. Subsidy is a way of spreading our bets by adding to the number and diversity of cultural producers.
Innovation is important and it is as likely to come from subsidised work as from commercial work.
There is nothing in the economic logic of either subsidised or commercially-financed cultural production which makes either of them inherently conservative or innovative. We should welcome both. There is a danger in allowing soap opera or quiz shows to exemplify popular culture. The next step is then either to abhor the popular as vulgar and debased, or to strive to defend these shows as authentic expressions of popular desire. The result is a rather inconclusive debate.