AceShowbiz - The Pitt has been praised as a throwback to classic television, diverging from today’s binge-and-binge formats and dark antiheroes. Instead of a short eight-episode drop and a brooding lead, this medical drama favors 15-episode seasons released weekly, featuring idealistic and heroic characters striving to make a difference. It’s often described as The West Wing set in a hospital, with no trace of a Walter White-type protagonist.

However, beyond its storytelling style, The Pitt embodies another hallmark of an earlier TV era: its filming location. The series shoots in Los Angeles, a once-thriving hub for television and movie production. While the exodus of industry jobs from Hollywood is not a new phenomenon, the rate of decline over the past few years is unprecedented. According to recent Labor Department data cited by The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles has lost approximately 42,000 entertainment jobs since late 2022, representing a staggering 30 percent reduction in employment.

Noah Wyle, star and executive producer of The Pitt, took a stand in a March congressional hearing addressing this crisis. Channeling the advocacy spirit of his character Dr. Robby, Wyle described how six years of challenges have brought about “a near cratering of our once thriving industry.”

The reasons behind this sharp decline are complex and multifaceted. Factors include global competition, consolidation within the media industry, and evolving viewer habits. Notably, the widespread concern about artificial intelligence’s impact has yet to be a primary cause. The core issue boils down to economics: media companies are producing less content overall, and even less in Los Angeles, mainly to cut costs. California’s high expenses and union demands for living wages make filming locally less appealing financially. The recent congressional hearing aimed to push for a federal film tax incentive to revive Hollywood’s economic viability.

But the problem extends deeper than just tax incentives or location costs.

Television experienced a boom in the early 21st century. In 2010, cable television was present in over 90 percent of American homes, offering a dominant mode of consumption. Cable’s financial model, established in the 1990s, was highly lucrative: cable companies profited from hardware rentals, subscription fees, and advertising sales. Networks, the content creators, earned revenue both from cable fees and advertisers. This system created multiple revenue streams for all parties, providing viewers with ample programming.

A key development was cable’s explosion of channel offerings. Subscribers gained access to over 100 channels, despite research showing the average viewer regularly watched only about 17. Regulations from the 1990s incentivized networks to create more channels, as each new channel generated additional revenue. Channels ranged from the Military Channel to Romance Classics and the Boyz Channel, bundled together by cable companies and sold at a premium price.

This proliferation of channels meant thousands of hours of content had to be produced. Jobs once limited to a handful of networks expanded across diverse programming on channels like AMC’s Mad Men, TNT’s The Closer, and MTV’s Laguna Beach. Many production jobs, including union positions, flourished due to this demand. Even less prominent channels provided steady work for industry professionals. While not all productions were based in Los Angeles, or unionized, there was enough volume to support a broad workforce. Despite its questionable business practices, cable’s greed helped sustain a working- and middle-class television industry.

The disruption came with Netflix, which evolved from a DVD rental service to a streaming platform in 2011, with original content debuting in 2013. Netflix’s appeal was its ad-free model and the ability for viewers to pay only for what they wanted to watch, rather than subscribing to costly cable bundles filled with channels they never viewed. This shift struck a nerve with consumers, who began to question the value of paying high fees for large channel packages, often asking, “Why am I paying for the American Heroes Channel?” Netflix’s subscription was just $7.99 a month, a compelling alternative.

The success of Netflix sparked a streaming gold rush in the 2010s. New entrants like Hulu and Amazon Prime Video emerged, followed by legacy media companies launching their own services—NBC’s Peacock, Disney+, Discovery+, Paramount+, CNN+, and others. Internal resources shifted from profitable cable and linear programming toward these streaming platforms.

For many industry workers, this transition was initially manageable. Early on, streamers focused on subscriber growth and thus commissioned a high volume of shows to attract viewers. While cable networks produced fewer programs and some channels, like the American Heroes Channel, ceased new content production by the late 2010s, streamers compensated by buying a wide variety of shows. This period, known as Peak TV, allowed viewers—especially millennials and Gen Z—to cut cable subscriptions and embrace streaming, causing streamer subscriptions to soar.

However, the momentum changed in 2022. Writers and actors staged strikes over issues including inadequate residuals from streaming platforms. More significantly, Netflix reported its first subscriber loss. This forced Netflix to shift its business focus from global subscriber growth to profitability. As FX network head John Landgraf explained in a 2024 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, this pivot meant the quickest path to profit was to reduce output and cut costs. This strategy cascaded throughout the industry.

Consequently, streaming services began buying fewer shows, laying off staff, and raising subscription prices. The primary goal became profitability rather than subscriber numbers or content volume. This shift ties directly into the challenges facing Los Angeles production. While tax incentives remain a factor, streamers are increasingly opting to produce less content overall, regardless of location.

By the end of 2025, industry publication Deadline released a “Streaming Report Card” noting that after over five years of heavy losses, streaming platforms finally started turning a profit. But reaching this milestone came at a significant cost. The previous system that supported thousands of stable, middle-class jobs in television production was dismantled.

This era also marked what some call the “streamer enshittification” phase. Since 2023, subscription fees have surged, cheaper plans now include commercials, password sharing is restricted, and the amount of new content has declined. Far from benefiting all stakeholders, the changes have narrowed opportunities for industry workers and limited consumer choices.

In summary, the television industry’s financial pressures have reshaped production and employment landscapes. While shows like The Pitt might nostalgically recall an older era of TV, the underlying economic realities reflect a market in flux. Hollywood’s job losses, the rise and fall of cable, and the streaming revolution illustrate how media companies’ pursuit of profit can undermine the ecosystems that once supported vibrant and diverse television production.