Americans Are Watching Fewer American Shows | Charts 34%

By Christofer Hamilton0%

6/26/2026, 5:10:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, False Dilemma, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 29.6% saturation with 147 hits. Analysis detected 985 faulty-reasoning hits from 497 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.8% and a BS Rank of 34% (14,621 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.80% of the article peer group.

It's no secret that Hollywood's grip on global audiences has loosened. 
But while the decline of American entertainment dominance is old news, the industry's assumed solution, pushing "local content for local audiences," misses the mark. 
Looking at demand trends over the past few years reveals that as global viewers have moved away from U.S. content, they aren't simply retreating to their domestic borders; they are actively blowing past them. 
The global share of demand for U.S. series fell from 51.0% in 2022 to 41.9% in 2025. 
This is not just America losing a foothold in export markets. 
American audiences themselves are swapping out local shows for international imports. 
In the U.S., demand for American series dropped from 78.2% to 68.3% over the same three-year period. 
This trend is broad-based and not just driven by a few large markets. 
Overall, 78% of countries had a smaller share of demand for U.S. series in 2025 than they did in 2022. 
If audiences are watching less American content, what are they tuning into? 
The natural assumption is local programming, yet the data contradicts this. 
While 41% of countries saw local content demand grow between 2022 and 2025, more than half actually saw a declining demand share for local shows. 
The real story lies in surge for a third category  content that is neither American nor produced in the viewer's home country. 
Between 2022 and 2025, 89% of countries saw an increase in the share of demand for non-local, non-U.S. shows. 
The film industry mirrors this, with 94% of countries seeing increased demand for movies outside the U.S. and local categories. 
America's dominant role as the world's content supplier is slipping, and audiences are casting a wide net. 
A viewer in Brazil is increasingly likely to binge-watch a Korean, British, or Turkish drama. 
Interestingly, there is a surprising plot twist for several major content exporters. 
Countries that have been massive export success stories in recent years, such as Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Spain, and Colombia, have actually seen their share of demand for local content fall at home. 
The ultimate irony of becoming a global content powerhouse is that cultural exchange goes both ways. 
Even as the world develops an appetite for a country's homegrown stories, its own domestic audience often pivots away from local fare to content from other countries. 
Several factors are driving these worldwide shifts. 
U.S. entertainment companies have slowed their output, expanded their international footprint, and ultimately primed audiences to be much more receptive to foreign-language content. 
For global streamers, the takeaway is clear. 
While the production of local content may be increasing, the ultimate goal shouldn't be to silo it. 
The true objective is to make authentic, local productions that have the power to scale globally. 
The future of streaming isn't just about winning a specific local market; it's about winning the world. 
The post Americans Are Watching Fewer American Shows | Charts appeared first on TheWrap. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.4%Christofer Hamilton: 1.7%Associated Press: 2.2%Confirmation Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Christofer Hamilton: 0.6%Associated Press: 2.9%Availability Heuristic2.2%This article: 6.2%Christofer Hamilton: 1.6%Associated Press: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.2%This article: 6.6%Christofer Hamilton: 1.7%Associated Press: 0.4%Hindsight Bias6.6%This article: 10.3%Christofer Hamilton: 6.6%Associated Press: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias10.3%This article: 18.5%Christofer Hamilton: 12.0%Associated Press: 5.3%Framing Effect18.5%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.4%Christofer Hamilton: 0.9%Associated Press: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Christofer Hamilton: 0.8%Associated Press: 1.7%Optimism Bias3.2%This article: 3.4%Christofer Hamilton: 0.9%Associated Press: 1.3%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 2.4%Christofer Hamilton: 2.4%Associated Press: 7.3%Negativity Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Christofer Hamilton: 0.4%Associated Press: 0.8%In-Group Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Christofer Hamilton: 1.7%Associated Press: 1.4%Recency Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.8%Christofer Hamilton: 3.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man4.8%This article: 3.6%Christofer Hamilton: 0.9%Associated Press: 4.1%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 18.3%Christofer Hamilton: 5.4%Associated Press: 1.0%False Dilemma18.3%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.8%Christofer Hamilton: 4.1%Associated Press: 3.3%Hasty Generalization4.8%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.6%Associated Press: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.0%Christofer Hamilton: 2.9%Associated Press: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion8.0%This article: 11.1%Christofer Hamilton: 2.8%Associated Press: 0.6%Begging the Question11.1%This article: 6.0%Christofer Hamilton: 3.8%Associated Press: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.5%Christofer Hamilton: 2.4%Associated Press: 0.2%Composition/Division9.5%This article: 3.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.8%Associated Press: 1.8%Anecdotal3.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.5%Christofer Hamilton: 3.9%Associated Press: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.5%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 29.6%Christofer Hamilton: 11.2%Associated Press: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice29.6%This article: 10.1%Christofer Hamilton: 6.7%Associated Press: 1.8%Indoctrination10.1%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christofer Hamilton: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Christofer Hamilton: 1.2%Associated Press: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

497 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.