Now that I think about this BBC prig and Shakespeare some more, especially in the context of Welles talking to him:

If you split Shakespeare plays into "virtue triumphs", "mixed bag", and "virtue does not triumph", then Mr. Prig should be highly suspicious of Shakespeare, because even by a charitable definition of 'virtue triumphs', it's less than half of the time.

On the flip side, the number of plays in which virtue in no way triumphs, including plays which may as well be a horror movie, competes for size with the 'virtue triumphs' category.

The largest group in this trinary I've set up is easily the mixed-bag group.

Which plays would you place in what categories, ThatGuy? I'm having a hard time thinking of plays in which virtue triumphs, to be honest. There are a lot of plays in which villainy gets it's comeuppance, but often any virtue left standing is tangential at best and tagged on almost as an afterthought.

I guess many of his Comedies might count as "virtue triumphs", such as The Merchant of Venice, where the good guys finally stick it to that SNEAKY FUCKING JEW. But who remembers anything about *those* boring-ass plays?

EH-
Here are my quick and sloppy thoughts on the possible 'virtue triumphs' plays, considering both contemporary and Shakespeare-era values. If I understand correctly, there was probably a preference for power consolidation in that era because it leads to stability, but I'd hold off from calling that itself a virtue.
Yeah, the comedies are more likely candidates, generally speaking than the tragedies, due to just what the heart and bones of the genre are. (Keep in mind that what the folio says the genre is basically doesn't mean shit, and was often put there by the publisher)

-All's Well That Ends Well: (wiki synopsis by yours truly. It has been flagged for being excessively long, so no good deed goes unpunished. Most of the short synopses on wikipedia are entirely useless, but at least they 'fit the format', the use of which is unknown) It's practically a satire of romantic comedy, so 'mixed bag'
-Antony & Cleopatra: Vice suffers, but Octavius and Rome are more stoic and non-stupid than virtuous. 'mixed bag'
-As You Like It: 'virtue triumphs' I believe
-Comedy of Errors: 'mixed bag' if only because the twins are not especially virtuous, and that's hardly the focus here
-Coriolanus: Vice suffers, but neither Rome as a whole nor the plebians/populism can be seen as virtuous. 'mixed bag'
-Cymbeline: 'virtue triumphs'
-Edward III: who knows who wrote this
-Hamlet: Since Fortinbras is an unknown and the (mostly) virtuous characters of Hamlet and Ophelia suffer, I'm going to say 'virtue suffers'
-Henry IV 1 & 2: as a pair, I think 'virtue triumphs' fits
-Henry V: probably 'mixed bag' for us and 'virtue triumphs' for his era, because that cause for war is deliberately questionable; probably not questionable enough to matter to them, though.
-Henry VI 1, 2, 3: either 'mixed bag' or 'virtue suffers'
-Julius Caesar: individuals who are both virtuous and vicious at once on both sides of conflict. This is just the wheel of fate turning. 'mixed bag'
-Henry VIII: 'virtue triumphs' for his era, 'who gives a shit' for ours
-King John: 'mixed bag' at best
-King Lear: 'virtue suffers', easy peasy
-Love's Labor's Lost: 'mixed bag' kinda-good-guys kinda fail
-Macbeth: probably has to be 'mixed bag' from the Shakespeare-era perspective, because it sets up Banquo's line as successors to the throne of England, and vice suffers. But it's certainly not 'virtue triumphs'.
-Measure for Measure: 'mixed bag' It's called a problem play for a few reasons. But by his own era, we might have to say 'virtue triumphs' - no special sympathy would have been lent to Isabelle for being a nun, I think
-Merchant of Venice: I think even in his era it's 'mixed bag' because though vice suffers, the rich Venetian happy-go-luckies are kinda crappy and empty, and because he really undercuts his own Shylock as a 'monster'.... or is it just the wheels of fate and fortune acting on everyone??? Problem play. (ideas from Bloom and Emma Smith here)
-Merry Wives of Windsor: 'virtue triumphs' if only cause vice is punished, or maybe 'mixed bag', and who gives a crap about this play?
-Midsummer Night's Dream: 'virtue triumphs' and vice gets to join the party. Perfect comedic inclusion.
-Much Ado About Nothing: 'virtue triumphs' clearly
-Othello: 'virtue suffers', good grief
-Pericles: 'virtue triumphs', or at least cardboard cut-outs of virtue do
Richard II: 'mixed bag' either era
Richard III: vice fails but innocents suffer- probably has to be 'mixed bag'
-Romeo and Juliet: 'virtue suffers' duh
-Sir Thomas More: collaboration with S as minor player, and not worth discussion
-Taming of the Shrew: has to be 'mixed bag' for sure
-Tempest: 'virtue triumphs', partly because Prospero reconsiders himself
-Timon of Athens: not sure virtue is present in anyone but Timon who is also vicious, so 'mixed bag'
-Titus Andronicus: horrorshow 'virtue suffers'
-Troilus and Cressida: T & C are both mixed, so 'mixed bag' at best
-Twelfth Night: 'virtue triumphs' if only because Viola and a bunch of non-vicious find love. I guess you could shrug this one into 'mixed bag' if you though no virtues really won out here
-Two Gentlemen of Verona: oh boy, probably 'virtue suffers' from our point of view
-Two Noble Kinsman: 'mixed bag' in either era I think
-Winter's Tale: 'mixed bag' restoration with a price, I guess

So any way you slice it, virtue triumphs less than half the time, easily.

Let's discuss the violent influence of religion instead.

Or ignore the fact that the most violent places on Earth have a dearth of mass media.

People in violent places are too busy being killed to produce or consume mass media, while people in non-violent places are bored, and need to do *something*, even if it's just complaining about movies and video games.