It's closest 70's show would probably be Dallas which had 350 million people worldwide watch an episode. That's a well done hook even if they could not show nudes etc.
As to offending people, MAS*H had men in drag show up regularly which really would offend people. Yet, apparently 60% of US households tuned in for the final episode. IMO, this suggests they actually had some freedom.
Remember, Shakespeare was also aiming for a wide audience. It promotes multi layered messaging, which is more complex than just having everyone backstabbing everyone else.
When I pull up a random television network schedule from the 1970s -- let's pull up 1976-1977. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976%E2%80%9377_United_States_...) I see some shows generally recognized as quality television.
And, er, some television that isn't. No surprise.
At least, I certainly don't think the variety shows count as "great" by most people's scope, of which 1970s television had a lot of. At least, I'm not aware of modern demand for the Tony and Dawn Rainbow Hour, Donny & Marie, the Shields and Yarnell show, or the Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour. Maybe I'm wrong.
In the scripted department, there's several single-season or less programs. I presume weren't that great. Shows like Holmes and Yo-Yo, Nashville 99, Quinn Martin's Tales of the Unexpected, and Gemini Man, were they that great? (A "TV movie" -- Riding With Death -- from the last one was used as fodder for MST3K. So, probably not.)
The one thing I think is notable in older TV listings is just how strongly several formats dominate. Namely, in addition to the variety shows, sitcoms and crime / medical dramas seem to dominate. (If you are looking for fantasy / horror / sci-fi, to give a few other genre examples, your pickings are slim.)
"Good" is by nature subjective. But one thing I can say is that none of these genres are typically noted for multilayered messaging. To give two examples from the sitcom side, here are two 1976 shows that are generally reviewed as "good": "Three's Company" and "Good Times". One is basically a farce often criticized as "jiggle television". One basically became a platform for the wacky antics of JJ. Not sure I'd describe either of these shows as very "deep". :)
Today, in the era of DVRs and on-demand streaming, I do think it's easier for writers to "risk" multi-episode plotlines.
Though, if your going to compare the average show, then the competition is more like 'Pawn Stars', 'My Teen is Pregnant', 'Tiny House Hunters', etc. Or you could compare similar longer running shows like Three's company (8 seasons) vs. Two and a Half Men (12 seasons).
So, my guess is a random episode of 'Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour' was probably better than a random episode of a random cable TV show. Though, it's also very dated at this point. It's also likely worse than say the best south park episode or whatever show you actually like.
Anyway, I am not saying the 70's wins hands down, hell I was not even alive then. But, I do think people are confusing shows about things they like with actual quality. I might like 'How It's Made' but it's not exactly deep.
You can't compare numbers directly like that. Cable was not invented yet (or at least wasn't common) so there was a choice of about 4 channels.
Anyway, my point was not to compare numbers which is why I did not show GoT numbers. My point was simply a ridiculous number of people thought it was worth watching.
Hmmm? The mass appeal shows were not great by any stretch of the imagination precisely because of aiming for "lowest denominator" mass appeal.
At best they could be good despite going for mass appeal, but aiming for the more tame and universal themes.
By going for smaller audiences the creators can take chances, what some church lady from Iowa or SJW from Portland might find offensive is not as much of an issue, and the storytelling and directing can be more demanding (as it doesn't have to aim to please any average Joe).
Shows like GoT, HoC, Breaking Bad, True Detective (season 1), etc are so much better than the "mass appeal" crap of yesteryear (with some exceptions, like MASH) that it's not even funny.
For one, they don't use "tv actors" as much, but Hollywood a-listers. Second the production values are 10x and 100x those older "mass appeal" shows.