Shippensburg University

Search
Search
News
Multimedia
Sports
Ship Life
Opinion
Subscribe
Entertainment
Send a Tip
Podcasts
Donate

Shippensburg University

°
Full Forecast

Thursday, November 6, 2025

The Slate

Subscribe

Print Edition

  • News
  • Opinion
  • Ship Life
  • Entertainment
  • Sports
  • Multimedia
  • Send a Tip
  • News
  • Sports
  • Opinion
  • Entertainment
  • Ship Life
  • Multimedia
  • Podcasts
  • Special Issues
  • Send a Tip
  • Donate
Search

Subscribe

 

Last Updated 2 hours ago

The Shrinkflation of TV

By Matthew Scalia

Share

  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Mail
  • Print

“Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. It’s continuing mission: To explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before.” 

That is how “Star Trek: The Next Generation” started every episode. Running from 1987 to 1994, the show aired 178 episodes over seven seasons. What a time for television. But Trek was not unique. In fact, most television shows of the era produced large bodies of work that eclipse the highest-rated shows we have today.

There was “Baywatch,” a show that started out as a serious look at duty, institutional trust and the weight of responsibility bared by lifeguards, until it turned into a campy mess. There was “Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman,” a show that followed a female physician in the 1800s and looked at issues such as America’s treatment of Native Americans, as well as gender and racial issues of the time.

Now you get 10-episode seasons, if you are lucky. Do not be greedy, because sometimes it is eight, and sometimes they are spaced 2-3 years apart. What happened?

Well, the culling of TV occurred in earnest in 2008. That was when a strike instituted by the Writers Guild of America caused networks to look for ways to cut costs, since the writers wanted residuals from DVD sales and the streaming of the shows they worked on. 

The impact was immediately noticed. Juggernauts of the era, like ABC’s “Lost” and NBC’s “Heroes,” were cut in half. The latter never recovered. But the actors and networks were happy. If you suddenly gained half of the time you spent working back to go work another job and make more money, you would likely be happy, too.

The actors also see it as a way to increase their fame. Why stay tied to a show when you can crank out numerous projects while demand is up? Hollywood is happy to accommodate them. They already slap Zendaya on projects like she is a filter on an Instagram Reel.

That is much easier than finding new talent or scheduling around eight-month long seasons. 

If you do not feel cheated, you should. It is the TV version of shrinkflation — you paying more for less just like when you get a smaller container of ice cream that cost more than it did a couple of years ago.

And just like ice cream, the disease is the same. It is just another form of greed.

Share



Related Stories

The Slate Speaks: Everything is a Subscription

By Slate Staff

A wall of CDs kept by SU radio station WSYC.

Own Your Music with CDs

By Graye Elmer

Pumpkins carved for Halloween

The Slate Speaks: Preparing for all Hallows Eve

By Slate Staff


The Slate welcomes thoughtful discussion on all of our stories, but please keep comments civil and on-topic. Read our full guidelines here.


Most Popular


10/6/2025, 9:30pm

SU mourns the loss of Robert Lesman, chair of the Global Languages and Cultures department

By Evan Dillow / News Editor

10/8/2025, 1:46pm

The anthropology program at SU draws to a close as Professor Karl Lorenz prepares for retirement


10/7/2025, 6:00pm

Sequins are forever: ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ Review


11/4/2025, 4:10pm

Meet the Feminists of Shippensburg



  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Work For Us
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Ship Life
  • Entertainment
  • Sports

All Rights Reserved

© Copyright 2025 The Slate

Powered by Solutions by The State News.