I suspect this has to do with the advent of inexpensive, digital a/v production. The democratization of film production and distribution is a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, we should expect the result to be extremely niche targeting of audience by producers. This leads to wonderful "content" (film production) by architecture nerds like Andy Johnson and the rest of the Fried Egg crew, or NLU guys, that would otherwise never be made because there aren't enough of us out there to justify the cost a few decades ago. This is fantastic, and I celebrate it. I would even suspect that a lot of the cool flyover interviews from Golf Digest wouldn't be made a while back just because of the productions costs.
On the other hand, there are just as many folks in other niches that we may not care for. Whether that's the party golfers, thirst traps, or even the potty mouths, there is an audience for each of these things.
Where this becomes challenging is back at the TV production level. Since the audience has gotten significantly more niche, there is less money in broad-audience broadcast production, simply because people are getting their golf-fix elsewhere. This means that production gets worse, and probably has to try to target specific broad-demographics rather than high quality production that targets all demographics. This is mirrored in television production. We used to have extremely well written shows like Cheers, M*A*S*H, etc., simply because there was enough money to hire enough writers to appeal to basically everyone, without offending anyone. Now we have a mix of reality television (because it's cheap), and procedural targeted at older folks (because they're mostly innocuous, and they generally aren't on the streaming sites as much).
If the broadcasts are getting crude and boring to you, it's probably because you're no longer the demo the broadcast is chasing. Generally speaking, if the commercials aren't relevant to you, you're not the audience.