The Fact of Television

Q1: Cavell's article was very confusing to me, especially when he started discussing the "theory of genre," how the notion of genre has thus far been used and how it should be defined. I understand what he calls "genre-as-cycle," but what is the difference between this and the "Hollywood comedy of remarraige" or "genre-as-medium"? What does "genre-as-medium" even mean?

Q2: The comparison between television and film was interesting. While movies can be criticizable, treasurable, but often forgotten after seen once, television is remembered not for the individual work, but the program as a whole. At one point, Cavell brings up the tendency for film to "greedily" reinterpret events such as a ballet or opera, whereas television supposedly shows more "respect" toward these events through its format. Is it true that television does not impose a bias on events in the way that film does? Could one argue that it is in fact the opposite, that television is more prone to reinterpret things than film?