From an objective point of view they are not better, and they're not worse because both of those are subjective views. It's perfectly possible for someone to say I don't enjoy something as much as they did 20 years ago. That is a perfectly legitimate statement. But it can't be measured.

One often hears people talk of a "golden era" of television, but such things can only ever be judged through rose-tinted spectacles. I well recall my grandfather's withering response to a crony of his waxing lyrical about the so-called "good old days - when you could leave your door unlocked." "Indeed," agreed my grandfather. "But only because we had nothing to nick..."

If the internet had existed in 1979, say, you would see people posting that Coronation Street , for example, wasn't as good as it was in the 1960s, even though some claim the 1970s were its golden era.

People change. Society changes. The way people absorb media changes. How many of the biggest movie stars of the 1950s were the biggest movie stars in the 70s? Long running shows must adapt to survive. The 1960s and 70s Doctor Who episodes I loved as a child would crash and burn in the ratings if produced today. Sean Connery's Bond movies, a cinema phenomenon in the mid-60s, would seem tame and dull to the majority of moviegoers in 2014. Elsie Tanner and Meg Mortimer would seem something out of the dark ages to modern day audiences.

So, no, soap operas aren't better or worse. But they are different. Whether one likes the changes or not is another matter altogether. But it might mean that a show is no longer being made for us anymore and is being made for a younger audience. We sometimes have to recognise that we've become too old for the target demographic.

This rewriting of history always amuses me. All the "groundbreaking" stories you cite had been done before by Brookside. And better.

I actually have found Corrie better in the 6 weeks since Tina's death but then it has been dreadful the preceeding 6 months or so - probably about the worst I remember it being in 35 years and even earlier judging by the dvds of 60s and 70s episode I have seen. I agree that they've handled the grief at losing Tina badly. It's not as appalling as Hollyoaks though we're a family appear to have got over both their parents being killed suddenly in a car crash within 2 days! I know Hollyoaks is considered the least realistic of the Soaps but that is ridiculous and actually crass and insulting.

Ah forgot about Brookie, slightly before my time. Can't speak for anyone else: just the impact on me and my mates. They all seemed groundbreaking to us, partly because it was on the BBC and I think Brookie was on Channel4 which was supposed to be naughty and daring.

Also no intention of rewriting history! It's interesting but not that important!!

I agree in principle with everything you said there, of course it is subjective and the style of television has just changed. Some prefer the current style, some the old and sometimes it depends on your mood - that's me! There will always be viewers wanting to complain and wax lyrical about the good old days very quickly.

But sometimes the 'rose tinted spectacles' argument can be used to make out that people are remembering incorrectly and being unfair on current stuff when it really isn't as good by common consensus.

Interesting that you should mention Doctor Who because it was an argument John Nathan-Turner used a lot to fans in the mid to late 80s when they complained about falling quality. But then the videos of the older shows started coming out on video so could be reassessed and whilst there were some disappointments (the memory had cheated) most were as good if not better than remembered and better than what was airing at the time and in story listing now (DWM did one 2 months ago) they do score more highly than the majority of those produced from about 1983-1989 and that includes people not born at the time that have just watched them all through in the last few years on DVD (they break the age demographics down in the results and are only allowed to vote on stories you've seen).

You're right to clarify the rose-tinted spectacles argument. I meant it in the sense of those who "remember" all Christmases were white and the sun was always shining in summer.

In terms of television, we recall the good bits vividly. But for every Morecambe and Wise Show, there was a Mike and Bernie Winters. Looking back at some of the schedules for the 70s, I was once amazed at how much dross surrounded the programmes I loved.

And don't get me wrong, I can moan about stuff today and sound like Victor Meldrew like the best of 'em at times! My particular dislike - and I work in the industry - is of executives' need for instant gratification. The Good Life would not have survived if its first series was shown today. It didn't really get going until its third series, but the BBC stuck with it.

In an era when the overnight ratings are becoming less important, particularly for the soaps, maybe the pressure to deliver big ratings might affect storytelling, and the wheel turns again...?

Yes I agree about the 'winters were colder, summers sunnie3' mentality that I think we all have from time to tome, especially concerning our childhoods. I remember some fairly dreadful tv in the 70s and 80s (things like On the Buses, Mind Your Language) but I suppose you don't stick with stuff you really hate so there isn't as much for you to personally remember and yes the good stuff stays more in the mind. It is the standard, run of the mill, mundane stuff that tends to be forgotten. Sitcoms like 'No Place Like Home' which was just about watchable if nothing else was on but far from good.

Shows not being given time to grow is a real bugbear of mine as well. The Good Life happens to be one of my all time favourite shows but you're right, it would have been cancelled after one series these days. Likewise 'Only Fools and Horses' which didn't become truly successful until it's 3rd or 4th year. Word of mouth does take time and that is how shows audiences really grow - not shoving trailers down our throat 30 times a day from 6 weeks before the programme or storyline is due to air. Also the tenancy to run a show into the ground if it is successful rather than commission new stuff. Again it felt like they were preoapred to cancel things after 5 or 6 years even though ratings were still good back then because they felt the story had been told and best to go out whilst it was still popular.

I've spent most of the last 20 years working in Advertising or PR and have some very close family and friends working in Television production and Publishing (-ncluding TV mags) so have a keen interest in how shows get made and changing trends. Hopefully you're right and less and less people watching live on transmission and the rise of 'box set' viewing will make programmers more adventurous about what they commission and give things a chance to naturally evolve and build an audience.

I do also think that sometimes the writers and producers listen to the audience too much on places like here. Whilst we as an audience have a right to feedback and sometimes can see where things are going wrong, there is a big danger in giving the viewers what they want rather than what they need (a Joss Whedon quote) and should sometimes have the courage of their convictions re plots or new characters.

Not at all. JT seemed to imply (they can correct me if I'm wrong) that people only watched the soaps because there was nothing else on. I watched them because I loved them and actually there was other stuff on that I also liked. Just because there were only 4 channels doesn't mean most of the stuff on them wasn't good. The 80's is a great era for tv in general, not just soaps.

Of course I don't think everyone values the soaps as much as I do and would re-watch them. I know I'm in the minority on that one. I also would never deny the impact satellite tv has on today's viewing habits. I just don't believe it was put up or shut up when there were 4 channels. There was a lot of great tv back then, including the soaps, that I was happy to watch. Today we have even more choice so of course people aren't going to sit down every evening and watch the soaps. A lot of people these days have no use for tv at all.

Is it because we are expecting to much these days???.. Any of the soaps can only reach a certain peak..can't we just take them for what they are......and just enjoy them

I think most of the soaps have deteriorated, but they are still watchable, except Emmerdale. The producer was contracted to produce a rural drama; instead, she turned it into a sleazy cops and robbers story to please herself. A lot of people enjoy this sort of show, but this producer should have refused the job and started her own soap, leaving Emmerdale fans with their much loved show.