I think that this article brings up a few interesting thoughts. Kind of related to the last four articles, it's not stuff that we would really recognize unless we actually read about it. It was interesting to see the kind of, "assembly line", that goes into one tv show. (The networks, the process of every decision, how the producers can relate to the story-lines they create, etc.)
However, I think that throughout the whole article, I had one main theme that stuck out every time that it mentioned the stereotype of working-class men:
Why "reinvent the wheel"?
In the first section of the article, Butsch explains how the networks have more power over what is being put on television than the producers. They "have sweeping control over production decisions," so the producers do not have much of a choice but to stick with what they know: middle-class men. The networks also have to consider their own jobs and that is why they do not like taking risks, they too, stick with ideas that have had success in the past. Trying out a new idea could potentially mean losing their job. So, again, why reinvent the wheel? Also, changing the attitude of the sitcom will change the advertisements invested in those shows. So much can be affected by change, it seems to me like any change will be a recipe for disaster for the producers and networks. Unless these networks can take a leave of absence for a long time to completely reconstruct their programs, I think we should all just get used to men being buffoons on sitcoms.