I think one thing that people must do is separate the SHOW from the AWARDS. What appears on the show is pretty much dictated by what will bring ratings, given that CBS wants people to watch. The purpose of the SHOW is to generate ratings and Twitter is loaded with kids who honestly don't know who Paul McCartney is, so the people who put the show on need to emphasize the acts that will generate ratings.
The AWARDS are completely different. Approximately 90% of the Grammy awards presented on Sunday night were not shown on the televised program. You'll never see Chick Corea (who won a Grammy) or Del McCoury (who was nominated) on the Grammy show because they aren't in the "cool" (read "generates ratings") genres of music (Corea is a jazz performer; McCoury is bluegrass). Yet it is the goal of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS, the people behind the Grammys) to make sure that "experts" in each particular genre do the voting. For instance, rappers aren't voting for best polka album, and the bluegrass people don't vote for best classical recording. To that end they are to be commended for their attempt to make the award a proper representation. The voters are knowledgeable in their field of music. Granted, there are flaws. Alison Krauss, for instance, won a bluegrass Grammy on the basis of name recognition because there's not a single bluegrass lick on that album. However, I think they do much better than any of the multitude of fan-based awards that would give "best album" awards to Justin Bieber or some Disney act. That is why the Grammy is more significant than a "people's choice" award -- does anyone REALLY want someone who doesn't know who Paul McCartney is to be allowed to have a say in what constitutes musical excellence?