To the OP, while I respect and recognize your viewpoints, I would like to provide two counter-arguments.
With regards to why the Animal Kingdom and Restaurantorausus in particular, I assume Disney realized that Epcot may become too overcrowded and that given it's the busy season with the parks being crowded, the Wonders of Life and Odyssey viewings may not have been enough. They couldn't do it in the Magic Kingdom because of the new Seven Dwarfs Mine Train and many first-time visitors seeing a completed New Fantasyland and attendance wise, that park has more visitors there than the other three parks. Hollywood Studios was not an option either because given the massive popularity of Frozen, their new Frozen In Summer events most certainly would attract large crowds there. So the only option left was Animal Kingdom, even though as you pointed out, doesn't fit in theme-wise. And why Restaurantorausus, well, if the research shows that it's a popular eatery for the large tour groups, then they are appealing to masses and spreading out the park visitors, as well. Handling four smaller scale crowds is more manageable than one extremely large crowd to put in simple terms. Could they held it in Downtown Disney? Of course, but again, travelling to there takes a very long time and there's no transportation to Downtown Disney directly from a theme park either. So you could very well lose 1-2 hours of your day making a transfer from the parks to a hotel and then to Downtown Disney, which may seem minuscule on paper but can be very large and greatly affect plans, especially if that person is a "one and done" visitor. It's also an effective way to make more money from a business side. Charge people more money to watch games in the parks via park admission whereas they would spend a fraction of that going to a bar outside the parks, either on or off property. It's actually pretty smart
Now as for TVs in restaurants, well, as you pointed out, dining should be about spending time and family, though I would argue that in addition to that, it should be about feeling justified and satisfied for spending money for eating good quality food. With regards to TVs in restaurants, well, that's solely up to the restaurant and you as a paying customer have the right to either request to be seated away or self-seat away from the TVs and restaurants are supposedly laid out purposely that way to provide people who want a more intimate experience. Otherwise, order your food and request it to-go or even walk away. I mean, no one is forcing you to watch the restaurant TV. Some feel that providing a TV entices people to eat or drink more, which means bigger profits for restaurants. It's also some form of entertainment in a way and makes your wait for food a little easier. The economy is still struggling overall and many are cutting back on their TV plans and getting their TV online via Hulu and Netflix and as I said earlier, sporting events are not archived on those mainstream sites like Hulu or Netfliix or re-played very often. For sports fans, yes, there are apps to watch live streaming events, but depending on your resolution, data plans and bandwidth, you could end up getting a bad quality streaming feed. So for some, a TV in a restaurant to watch a big game may be their only source to watch the game. Unless it's an actual sport bar, I do think most restaurants try and do a fairly decent job of not making TV a distraction because the volume is kept low or medium at most and hold a middle ground of providing a TV in the restaurant for people that need it while at the same time, not distract people who truly value a great dining experience. But alas, all views of this topic are subjective.
