Murray Rothbard in For a New Liberty, Rothbard pointed out that is normal for TV to market to the lowest common denominator, because it is free, and thus the poor tend to gravitate towards it. Add to it their lousy public
But that is not all. I believe an even bigger culprit is at work, that being IP (in this case copyright). Because media can not be improved upon for 75 years, it must remain in it's current state, and that which is truly superior cannot make it's advances through high society, since it's owner controls it's fate. Adding to that, cultural performers can just sit back and stick with the status quo, never pushing for more, and leading to stagnation. Also, because of this monstrosity, mega corporations can control the fate of the culture through merely buying these pseudo rights (for they are not negative rights, but merely positive), and end up where we are with only 6 companies in the US controlling the majority of the content displayed. Plus only the monied can begin broadcasting because of licenses and other issues. And with this accumulation of power in the hand of the few, the inevitable was likely to happen: the government getting involved. This leads to repression of freedom of speech through "voluntary" bleeping and in some cases "fairness doctrines", which force the very people the second amendment was meant to protect off the airways.
While many may question this opening of freedom to content (not only of copyright, but of censorship), and whether it may lead to actually more intellectual bankrupt content, take the case of video "remixers". Video remixers take videos with morally questionable content that may be offensive to some groups, and take out the parts that would be offensive. But due to copyright, this service was banned by the courts, at least in the US. But this is a prime example of what a truly free marketplace would produce, that is, diversified content that is not concentrated in a monopolies hands, and would fill the void where there is a void.
We must also consider the historical aspects as well. If many of the great works that we have come to view as classics had severe copyrights on them like we have now of 70 or more years, we may have never heard of books and authors such as the Bible, Plato, Bastiat, Proudhon, Marx, and for that matter many scientific discoveries (since they are peer reviewed, and thus must be shared). How could we have built Western Civilization, and the world for that matter without these developments? Will we miss further development because of IP?
Addeum:
On the "i" culture
In addition to poisoning the media, IP poisons everything, through both copyright and trademarks. With the proliferation of brand, people become more arrogant and elitist, and these brand manipulate this. They create a whole culture around their products, and if you are not "in" on this, then you are not cool, or saw as a black sheep of society, which plays on man's sense of belonging. I argue that without IP, we would be better off culture wise. IP give incentives and promotes cultures that destroy the general culture, by providing the fodder for people to act snobbish (such as Nike or the "i" brand"), and creates classes, such as the "gangsta" class and the "entitled princess class". I argue that if the rate of change in an industry such as fashion or music were sped up through an elimination of IP, I would argue that these cultures would die out, or at least die in numbers. But it is by this monopoly of power that the government has encouraged the spoiled princess or the ganstas.
