Media Trends - Those Who Pull the Strings

[Berzerker]

I've noticed a trend with a shift from political shows to quasi-legal shows where Republicans chase down the latest crime (no, not in the White House). First Aruba and now some really drunk guy went overboard a cruise ship near Turkey. Are the ratings for this crap even better than the ratings for the political crap I like? I know this was a Republican-led distraction from our own government to little Aruba, but is this the wave we're riding where politicians try to control the media by coercing the corporate owners to behave? Oops, that was how the Dems controlled the media before the Repubs...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The problem is not with media, media owners, or even politicians. The problem is with, yes, capitalism.

Pull up a chair, and Uncle Rufus will tell you a story...

Once upon a time, 30-40 years ago, the national tv news was much, much better than it is to day -- more sober, more responsible, more substanative. Why? Because it was insulated from the bottom line. Every network actually lost money on their news operations; they covered the losses with the profits they were making from the ad revenue on Mannix and The Brady Bunch. Given that news was a money-loser, you'd think the networks would have stinted on it; but instead, precisely because it wasn't expected to make money, they treated it as a prestige product, and giants like Walter Cronkite bestrode the earth.

Flash forward to the 80's. Corporate takeover/merger mania hits the media, as non-media companies take over the networks and tell them that the news has to be like any other corporate division: it has to pay for itself. At the same time, this upstart cable network called CNN begins trying to figure out how to sell 24 hours of national news ad time in a country that was used to a mere half an hour a day of national news.

And so began a long, slow race to the bottom. Of course it needn't have been a race to the bottom, and wasn't, initially. But by the early 90s, as desparate news producers who had never had to make money before were casting about for ways to do so, they noticed two things: first, that 3 new networks had emerged -- Fox, WB, UPN -- all of which seemed to be surviving by catering to the lowest common denominator; and second, that for the first time in TV history network daytime fare -- that is, soap operas -- were losing ground to a scary new bit of programming, the daytime talk show. The path to profitability seemed clear, and Christina Applegate and Jerry Springer were lighting the way.

Of course, as if that weren't enough, one of those bottom-feeding networks started its own 24-hour newschannel, and the race to the bottom became the Indy 500.

But in the end, the culprit was capitalism, and the placing of profits above public service. The only good news program in America (The NewsHour on PBS) and the best news outfit in the world (the BBC) are both at least partly insulated from the market, and it shows.

[Gatekeeper]

I'm biased in favor of newspapers. Don't know why ... just am.

Gatekeeper

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
and giants like Walter Cronkite bestrode the earth.

Giants who didn't know what they were talking about who pronounced defeat for your nation while your armed forces had just routed the enemy in the field. Giants who, because they said it, many others accepted it.

Yes, you need more of those giants...

[notyoueither]

Everyone is far better off knowing that the heads on the tube really are idiots for the most part, rather than putting them up on some pedastel that they long ago swept national leaders off of.

[Max Webster]

I spend more time on the internet getting my news, don't watch the boob tube all that much anymore. My computer is my boob tube now.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Giants who didn't know what they were talking about who pronounced defeat for your nation while your armed forces had just routed the enemy in the field. Giants who, because they said it, many others accepted it.

Yes, you need more of those giants...

That's why I get my news from Poly: 1,000 people and 65,000 DLs can't all be wrong.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Giants who didn't know what they were talking about who pronounced defeat for your nation while your armed forces had just routed the enemy in the field. Giants who, because they said it, many others accepted it.

Yes, you need more of those giants...

Right. Walter Cronkite lost the eminently winnable Vietnam War.

[notyoueither]

Well, there is a theory that the war was lost in your livingrooms. I doubt it was the NVA who won that victory.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, there is a theory that the war was lost in your livingrooms. I doubt it was the NVA who won that victory.

Hmm, is it coincidence then that the rise of 100s of specialized cable channels and the Internet has paralleled an increase in wars involving the USA, now that fewer people watch network news?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, there is a theory that the war was lost in your livingrooms. I doubt it was the NVA who won that victory.

The war was lost in our living rooms, to some extent. But it wasn't because of what anchors were saying; it was because the networks actually showed the war -- lots of it, in footage that wasn't pre-approved by the Pentagon. One can only imagine what Bush's approval rating would be like right now if news outlets were still that brave.

In fact, one of the hallmarks of the old news is just how much time they spent showing news. Elections are another good example. During the 1968 election, the average clip of a candidate speaking was over a minute long -- long enough for viewers to hear something of substance being said. By the 2000 election, the average clip of a candidate was 8-9 seconds.

The old news was news. The new news is infotainment. The elevation of profit above public service is to blame.

[notyoueither]

One wonders if the US would have made it to Normandy without suing for peace with Germany, had the networks actually showed the war. I'm sure not even FDR would have worn that well, forget about Bush.

The old news had merit, I agree. The old news stopped being news sometime around the time Cronkite got up, took off his glasses, and told Americans that Tet was a disaster... when in fact the VC had been soundly trounced.

Cronkite was the beginning of what you despise. The personality became larger than the news. The elevation of personality is what is actually to blame.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Smiley


Hmm, is it coincidence then that the rise of 100s of specialized cable channels and the Internet has paralleled an increase in wars involving the USA, now that fewer people watch network news?

Your're funny. Hehe.

[Ted Striker]

Excellent analysis Rufus.

Nothing more to add really.

Catering to the lowest common denominator pretty much sums it up.

We could go on about the cultural repurcussions which I believe are taking the country to a dangerous place, to a place similar to when the Western Roman Empire population became excessivley hedonistic.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Cronkite was the beginning of what you despise. The personality became larger than the news. The elevation of personality is what is actually to blame.

Personality isn't the issue (and Cronkite wasn't the start of that anyway; it was already a firm feature of broadcast news when Edward R. Murrow was reporting from WWII London). The issue is taking news reporting itself seriously. Murrow did; Huntly and Brinkley did; Cronkite did. And they did, or they were allowed to, because the people who put them on the air did. Now, however, it's become impossible to believe that news outlets take news reporting seriously -- garnering ratings, yes; selling ad time, yes; but not news reporting.

Cronkite was seriously wrong about Tet. But at least he was serious; he, and the networks, never led the news with three straight days of "runaway bride" stories when American soldiers were fighting and dying.