Brett,
I look at TV design as slightly different.
I believe that credit shoud be given to a golf course that looks good on TV because when a course hosts a tournament, the number of people that will see it on TV is far far greater than the number of people that will visit the course over the next 100 years. These people should be catered to.
When I say a course should get credit for looking good on TV, I don't just mean pretty flowers and lakes, what I mean is that features should be bold enough that they are able to be translated to TV. This is one of the great things about Augusta, Sawgrass and Whistling Straights, IMO, that, whilst you don't see how extreme the slopes and contours are, you can see that they are there. Further more, features like water hazards, which I am not normally a feature of, work great onTV because they exemplify risk/reward architecture in a way that the viewer can understand. Whereas some of the more traditional US Open and British Open courses translate poorly to TV.
TV courses are the most accessible to people around the world. Good TV architecture should be given credit.
There has been great improvement in TV coverage since HD came in. Lets hope networks continue to find new camera angles and techniques that translate the golf course architecture into the lounge room.