Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like you say, it's natural, just like in the past(?) when stupid reality shows and drama was gathering all the ratings. And I'll be honest (I'm not sure I'm one of many who feel this way), when you see guys like the Paul brothers in this list I can't help but think that the bad guys won.
Well it's natural in the sense that "mother or idiots is always pregnant" (ancient Italian proverb), but that's also not a thing we should prize. I mean, in my poor English, that it's normal we have a bigger audience for a video of people doing parkour that for a video about Bayesian's filter but we must develop a way to prize more the latter than the former. In physical world we have something like a doctor, lawyer,…
It is very untypical for an entertainer in popular fields like this to remain very big for over a decade. I think Jeffree Star is one of the few entertainers who has actually maintained top status since the Myspace days. In music, it's easily possible to think of a few Myspace-era music acts that are going strong (think Arctic Monkeys). But it's also easily possible to think of top Myspace-era acts that are now operating at much lower levels (think Owl City). The modeling / fashion world seems even worse than music at first glance for career length.
Currently, if you are an average programmer (you don't even have to know much about Bayesian filters) or other more technical career (including doctors and lawyers), you probably will have a pretty good paying career that could last decades. If you are a stellar entrepreneurial type, you also could earn millions (more than entertainers even). But if you don't have the knack for that or don't get the right breaks, you'll still probably come out fine, much better than the average entertainer.