I quoted you, SkateFiguring, to disprove your irresponsible generalization.
One other thought: Having skimmed the other posts, I don't see any complaints about what I saw as a possible contradiction in Hersh's interesting, if otherwise problematic, article: Hersh says, "Relentlessly determined to make every effort to reduce figure skating’s TV attractiveness, the sport’s pooh-bahs rejected the idea to have the free skate run in exact reverse order of the short program finish. Why would you want to add excitement by having the leader go last?"
This is bizarre to me, given the main focus of Hersh's article on fairness in figure skating. Even though we are no longer under 6.0 (in which judges would "save room" for potentially better later skaters by giving earlier skaters undeservedly lower scores (given a pre-set maximum)), it is, to my mind, still obvious that figure skating judges have not shaken this no longer "useful" habit. PCS go through the roof in the final 6, often embarrassingly for those of us who try to convince our friends that figure skating is not an inherently subjective athletic activity. GOEs also (even more perniciously, in my opinion) rise as we reach the end of events.
An informed view concerned with fairness would maintain that the top ranked skater after the SP go FIRST in the LP, followed by #2 (and so on). If nothing else, this would shake up and confuse figure skating judges' trained habits and sensibilities. (Maybe it would make them objective. Imagine the possibilities! Would it make events less exciting? Yes.) Why Hersh thinks, in one paragraph, that fairness is most important, but that, in another, suspense in more important is confounding to me.