That is because he was politically motivated and answered to nobody. Stations owned by public corporations answer to shareholders and react differently.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
"Newsroom culture clash" at CBS News
- Thread starter Mark Roberts
- Start date
To start, you could ask yourself why Bari Weiss expects changes to happen quickly (emphasis mine):
“Our industry has changed more in the last decade than in the last 150 years, and the transformation isn’t over yet. Far from it,” Weiss said at the Jan. 27 {"town hall"} meeting. “It’s almost impossible to conceive of how fast things will move from here.”
Source:
Exiting ‘CBS Evening News’ Producer Cites “Shifting Ideological Expectations” in Parting Message
Eleven staffers on the newscast have taken buyouts offered in late January.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
I happen to agree with you there; the "move fast and break things" mindset meets legacy organization with plenty of defense mechanisms. Make sure you have a good supply of popcorn!
That seems to happen a lot in media. The original plan gets watered down or barely materialize before they get halted a lot of times. The channel Cartoon Network was planning to become a "broad" entertainment channel a few years ago, and those plans got scrapped soon after; now they ended up giving a lot more time to Adult Swim instead. Usually they have to "read the room" to make a change, or just stick to what they know works at least okay.To start, you could ask yourself why Bari Weiss expects changes to happen quickly (emphasis mine):
“Our industry has changed more in the last decade than in the last 150 years, and the transformation isn’t over yet. Far from it,” Weiss said at the Jan. 27 {"town hall"} meeting. “It’s almost impossible to conceive of how fast things will move from here.”
Source:
Exiting ‘CBS Evening News’ Producer Cites “Shifting Ideological Expectations” in Parting Message
Eleven staffers on the newscast have taken buyouts offered in late January.
I happen to agree with you there; the "move fast and break things" mindset meets legacy organization with plenty of defense mechanisms. Make sure you have a good supply of popcorn!
She's on a short leash. And truthfully, I'm not expecting anything she does to get the results they expect.
Oh, I anticipate there will be all sorts of unexpected consequences.
The 80s were full of tumult at CBS New from the retirement of Cronkite and Bill Paley to the hostile takeover attempt by Ted Turner to the return by Paley and the arrival of Tisch. This period has a lot in common with that. We're in the very early stages.
If Ellison fails in his attempt to get WBD, there will be a completely different set of consequences.
What is new, though, are the political implications. For example, no one assumed that Larry Tisch had any particular political alignment.
But the Ted Turner thing was political. He was saying that CBS was too New Yawk and too liberal, and he was from Georgia. He would fix that.
To me, the statement in bold type indicates change in the entire communications, news and entertainment industries... and not specifically CBS.
The point may be that it took over a decade from the time music and talk were first possible to when radio became viable and started to enter most homes in the 1921-1922 period. Or the roughly quarter century it took FM to be found in many homes while becoming economically viable.
I suppose you could interpret it that way, but I was keeping in mind the context in which she made that statement: an all-hands meeting of employees, communicating what she wanted from them and how fast she wanted it. It didn't sound like a broader sociological statement to me.
But I don't recall that he had any particular alignment with political actors, that it was one of those more general quasi-populist outbursts that comes along every so often. My impression about Turner's bid was that it was motivated by pique over an earlier lowball offer for TBS more than anything else.
Read this story. He wanted to fix the liberal bias of CBS News. He talked to Jesse Helms:
Turner discussed CBS takeover bid with Helms - UPI Archives
Broadcasting mogul Ted Turner says he talked with Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and a conservative media group about a possible move to take over the CBS...
www.upi.com
Oh, the irony.Read this story. He wanted to fix the liberal bias of CBS News. He talked to Jesse Helms:
Turner discussed CBS takeover bid with Helms - UPI Archives
Broadcasting mogul Ted Turner says he talked with Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and a conservative media group about a possible move to take over the CBS...
Of course, he may have been casting about for support wherever he could find it. CBS did seem to have a special paranoia about him, going deep into debt to fight him off, which opened the door for Larry Tisch. CBS also had to raise money by selling KMOX-TV in St. Louis as a result of the added indebtedness.
Tisch also fired 250 staffers at CBS News and cut $30 million from their budget. So life wasn't great under Tisch.
Among those non-broadcast assets was Columbia Records, which he sold to Sony. You can trace the beginning of the end for CBS News to the 80s.
That was on top of Tom Wyman's layoffs, if I recall correctly.
All of that was a shock to the preppy culture of CBS. While I admire much of what CBS News has done, it was a place dominated by a particular type of person. It was amazing that Dan Rather ever got as far as he did there. Not because of ability, of which he had plenty, but because he had more rough edges than the Ivy Leaguers (or Ivy-Leaguer-wannabes) normally encountered.
Yes. Entire books were written about it.
They largest entities have and continue to sanewash and downplay, if not outright ignore, said “issues.”
One of those was the legacy of the inane electoral college. Let’s not pretend that didn’t happen.
So…bowing even further to kiss the ring is the answer.
And capitulation to a tyrant to gain favorable business outcomes is not remotely part of it. Hey….want to buy a bridge? I’ve got a great one to sell.
When the government and industry are so thoroughly intertwined as to be indistinguishable, which controls what becomes a moot point. They are all one entity. That became true in Russia and now has become true here, as businesses have taken over the federal government. And in both cases, led by a dictator. Russia is merely a bit further down the road.
The alternative is they send masked thugs to your city and shoot you. Which do you prefer?
Media corporations are not going to protect you from the person your fellow citizens elected.
The government sees it the other way around. The government is using taxpayer money to buy stock or interest in companies such as Intel.
Some would call this socialism or national socialism. Once again, there is no congressional oversight of anything.
The media has reported this, reporters have asked the president and his spokesman about it, and everybody knows.
U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel, as Trump expands control over private sector
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that the U.S. government has taken a 10% stake in chipmaker Intel.
This is not a media problem, and there's nothing the media can do about it except let people know it's happening.
The road to fascism is paved with people telling you everything's fine and that you're overreacting.