It's important to understand that late in its lifecycle a business often knows that the end is near and consequently reduces its value proposition and focuses on extracting as much value from customers as possible before it's too late.
That's exactly the situation with network TV now, and the article says as much. Networks are losing viewers and cranking up the ads to meet short term profit targets, which cause them to lose more viewers. They do it because network TV has no long term future anyway. They know that Netflix, Prime, and the streaming model are murdering their aging business that was designed in a different era. They know this is not a battle they can win. So they are working on their own alternatives like CBS All Access Pass and milking the old cash cow for whatever's left before the end comes.
Meanwhile if you're still watching conventional network TV, they're just going to screw you till the cows come home with a progressively shittier product because that's what a business in its end stages does.
The most valuable commodity of today is your attention. Never in history have other people (i.e. firms) had so many ways to bombard you with things that attempt to command and manipulate your attention for their own purposes (i.e. making money). As a consequence, your attention has become extremely scarce and valuable. Network TV is now 12min of advertising per hour. Why are you giving away 20% of the most valuable thing you possess for free? Are the (increasingly lame) shows really that good?
Take back your life from the attention mongers. Cut the cord, switch to Netflix, set up uBlock and a PiHole, never look back.
Whatever happened to stuff like Star Trek where each episode could be stand-alone, or a series was complete with closure? Crappy series cliff hangers never got me to tune into the next series - liking the progression of the story, the acting etc did.
Ironically I gave up broadcast commercial TV about the same time ago as you - because it had got too much with the adverts, and American direction. That was long before product placement in the UK, and a couple of liberalisations of regulation. When I visit friends now I am struck how comically often and terrible ads are. My memory says they used to try a bit harder and managed to get them at least competently produced and directed.
I used to love watching Myth Busters but it became so much like that it was ridiculous. There was a time you could download torrents of Myth Busters episodes with all the recaps removed.
It also wasn’t a purely American thing. Go watch some of the old black-and-white Dr. Who episodes, for example; you’ll see some prime examples of cliffhanger- and recap-dominated television.
The exception seems to be late-20th-century television shows, where the syndication system meant that episodes might be dropped or reordered arbitrarily by the local station. This made it difficult to impossible to have any kind of changing circumstances like an overarching plot except at big events like season breaks. Star Trek: TNG is a good example here; the interpersonal relationships between characters don’t really evolve very much, and when they do it’s part of a season-break spanning two-part story. Those reliably had every character in danger at the break to provide the studio leverage during contract negotiations.
As the premium television channels started getting into producing their own shows, they didn’t have the problem of local affiliates reshuffling their schedule— their distribution model let shows have an overall plot, but they still add to be acceptable for viewers that expected to get a whole story each week. This gave us shows like Stargate SG-1 which still had very formulaic episodes, but also a continuity between them.
You also started to have the national networks assert more control over the local stations which led to some successful attempts at shows with both series- and episode-long plot structures, like Babylon 5 & the West Wing. Vestiges of the old system remained for quite a while, though, and is a large part of why Firefly was never commercially successful— it was produced with continuity from episode to episode in mind, but the network aired them in a seemingly random order instead.
Most episodes would reach something more akin to a convenient place to pause - more like the reel break and intermission in old movies. Reach a local conclusion for whatever episode story was playing out, pick it up with a new episode arc next week, alongside continuing the character development and series arcs.
Interesting US network background I wasn't aware of. I'm fascinated by the idea networks would play series out of order, which on the face of it seems incredibly dumb. They're all the same length. Surely out of order would hurt the local station too, by losing viewers and potentially advertisers when stuff stops making sense?
Part of the issue was that show production was pipelined and unreliable. It sometimes happened that the “next” episode wasn’t ready in time for air but a later one was, and the network would rather show something new than a repeat. The show producers and writers knew this, too, so a style developed that didn’t include any long-term character development- each episode was a self-contained short story instead of a chapter in a novel.
This meant that, in the off season, local stations felt free to pick and choose individual episodes based on ratings without regard for anything else which further reinforced the style of having at least one self-contained story in each episode, which persisted long after the original constraints were lifted.
I only ever saw the US edits of the old Dr. Who shows, so the recaps may have been added to help it fit into the local TV mindshare.
The UK experience was more how you describe Babylon 5 etc - a show plot that concluded with the episode, but theme and character development across the series. Even the classics from the 70s and 80s. Some were so smooth a transition it actually did seem like getting a glimpse a week later, rather than an artificially exciting episode. To modern eyes that looks pretty dull, though that's partly camera and production techniques too, yet did seem to allow smoother development.
Dr Who was actually quite the exception there with 26 and even more in the earliest years! US seems to be 15 or unbelievable. They start to feel too long, even shows I enjoy, or perhaps ideas or budget get spread too thin, especially in 2nd and subsequent seasons.
That’s not what happened.
There are two reasons why serialized shows were not popular on network TV until recently.
Syndication - the networks always had control over what got sued during prime time. But they also made most of their money via syndication outside of prime time and with the cable channels. It’s really hard to syndicate serialized shows for the second reason...
If you miss either the first few episodes of a serialized show or miss an episode in between, you probably wouldn’t even bother about watching it. Now with video on demand via streaming the TV networks can tell the audience to catch up by going to the website/going to their cable providers VOD offerings, etc.
Netflix - serialized shows are very popular on Netflix where binge watching is a thing. Even the cable channels that buy syndication rights can also offer catchup/and video on demand.