"Quality control" could mean that only experienced/famous artists/producers/actors/whatev get their work published while the newcomers are censored or at least have to work their way up the ladder under the patronage of the more established artists. Or it could just mean that stuff that some board of censors does not like will not be published. And that's not totalitarian at all.
I wouldn't suggest either of those as solutions, for more reasons than one. And as you've already pointed out, we already have a form of media control in the name of "quality"--what the publishing company thinks will make them the most money. Yet we don't consider that a totalitarian principle. So, obviously, not all forms of quality control are created equal.
I also said, "assurance," I would like to be assured of quality. In principle, this is what reviewers are for, but I often don't trust them to tell me what I would want to know.
And the biggest problem still is that no one can agree on what is "good" art.
I try to work around this by basing my opinions on some kind of objective standard, so that I'm not declaring everything that I like to be high art, & everything that I don't to be drivel.
And even though Twilight has such a huge hatedom it also has a huge amount of die-hard fans so if we go by popularity then Twilight would be more likely to be seen as "quality art" than Star trek, My little pony or Red dwarf.
I would never go by popularity, for precisely that reason. Of course, popularity also makes you money, but the priorities of consumers & providers are obviously going to be different.
Is My Little Pony being used as an example of near-definite quality, here?
Eh. Bieber ain't any worse than the shit that was marketed to tweens in the 90's. Or the 80's. Or, for that matter, the 60's.
I was actually thinking this the other night.