TheBigA said:
ABC/NBC/CBS combine for about 27-million viewers for their nightly newscasts. ET claims less than half that - about 12-million viewers. And your welcome for doing your research for you.
-
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
Future Talent
- Thread starter jerry367
- Start date
ABC/NBC/CBS combine for about 27-million viewers for their nightly newscasts. ET claims less than half that - about 12-million viewers. And your welcome for doing your research for you.
SirRoxalot said:
Ahhhh.... If you are going to combine the audience for the three network newscasts, I would think you should also combine the audience Inside Edition with ET. There may be another such program that is not on my schedule.
And your welcome for doing your quality control process for you. ;D
So, let's hear the numbers. You're the one that put it out there. Time to put your numbers where your mouth is.
The assumption here is that all network news is "hard" news, and that all entertainment shows are puff pieces. The CBS evening news has that once a week (Monday evenings now, I think) segment from Steve Hartman ("everyone has a story," or something like that) which is really good. And shows like Entertainment Tonight and others are devoting time to coverage of the Haiti earthquake. It's too big of a story for them to ignore entirely, although Inside Edition managed to find a Tiger Woods connection to it. :
TheBigA said:
I never said that "no one really cares about Tiger or Conan". YOU'RE the one who said that infotainment shows like ET get more viewers than the nightly news. It ain't so as far as I can determine. I never said that anything was "being forced on an unwilling public by corporate media". You're the one who asked:
TheBigA said:
The fact is that nightly news DOES get more viewers than ET and all the other infotainment shows that run in the 7PM timeslot. If you've got information that disputes that, let's see it.
You also said:
TheBigA said:
Once again, I'd like to see the numbers that lead you to such a conclusion, because I'm not seeing it. I see more people complaining about the amount of coverage that Tiger got than I see people asking for more. The reality is that Tiger is an easy story. Real reporting is harder, and costs more. Tiger was a big story during a slow news cycle. If the Tiger story broke at the same time as Haiti, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much ink or airtime. Look at what's happened to the late night wars since Haiti. The late night debacle seems pretty insignificant to most people.
gr8oldies said:
Amen
And those that say, wait until a local company takes over, and they'll hire all of the out of work jocks and return to the days of live and local. Take a look at the few who have purchased and you'll see more cuts.
A
adma
Guest
TheBigA said:
Actually, these days, said "complainers" are probably less likely to frequent McDonald's than a generation or two ago--simply because with other options available, it's less the necessary, uh, culinary-cultural rite of passage. It's more out-of-sight out-of-mind, even when its presence remains in-your-face. Think of it as the same cultural-segmentation thing that has led many an erstwhile commercial-radio-complainer to opt out of radio altogether, and be none the poorer for it. How can one gripe when it's "just there"?
Or at least, whatever needling of McDonalds these days is on a higher socio-political level than it might have been a generation or two ago (think "Supersize Me"). Sort of how like complaining about commercial radio has gone from the crappy musical playlists of yesteryear to the insidious influence of Rush Limbaugh today. It's less about us, ourselves, individually being badly served, than about Americans and America in general--and unfortunately, it's also a discussion level that lends itself much more to the Take It Outside board.
Back to the point about saving serious journalism, there was a lengthy discussion about it last night on "Now on PBS." You can watch it here http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/603/index.html
The discussion was that serious journalism is dying because of lack of money. Newspapers are shutting down. They said it's been a problem for more than ten years. Their conclusion was that there needs to be a government subsidy for journalism. Or, as the host put it, a government bail out. The interview said that there had been a journalism subsidy for the first 75 years of this country. Newspapers were delivered by the post office for free, and there was an ink subsidy. They said other countries subsidize journalism. England has the BBC. How much would it cost? They came up with a figure of $30 billion. There would be insulation between the government and the journalists, and the content would become property of the public.
Great idea, right? I thought about it a bit, and it assumes, first of all, that we can define a journalist. Who would qualify for the money? Would the money only go to established journalism or bloggers? Back in the 60s, the government decided that art was essential to the public good. So they established the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. But it led to a discussion about "what is art?" Conservative groups disagreed with the type of art that got funded, and funding got cut. Also in the 60s, it was decided that the government should create public broadcasting. For 15 years, the government created PBS and NPR. Then Ronald Reagan came in and decided that it was a bad idea, and they were left to find their own funding.
The reality is that it is not in the best interest of the government to have an educated and informed populace. Journalists have done a lot to hurt the image of politicians. So how is it in their best interest to fund journalism? It isn't. Public funding also opens the door to arguments over people not wanting their tax money used to support news coverage they don't agree with. In other words, it's a mess, and there's no easy solution.
The discussion was that serious journalism is dying because of lack of money. Newspapers are shutting down. They said it's been a problem for more than ten years. Their conclusion was that there needs to be a government subsidy for journalism. Or, as the host put it, a government bail out. The interview said that there had been a journalism subsidy for the first 75 years of this country. Newspapers were delivered by the post office for free, and there was an ink subsidy. They said other countries subsidize journalism. England has the BBC. How much would it cost? They came up with a figure of $30 billion. There would be insulation between the government and the journalists, and the content would become property of the public.
Great idea, right? I thought about it a bit, and it assumes, first of all, that we can define a journalist. Who would qualify for the money? Would the money only go to established journalism or bloggers? Back in the 60s, the government decided that art was essential to the public good. So they established the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. But it led to a discussion about "what is art?" Conservative groups disagreed with the type of art that got funded, and funding got cut. Also in the 60s, it was decided that the government should create public broadcasting. For 15 years, the government created PBS and NPR. Then Ronald Reagan came in and decided that it was a bad idea, and they were left to find their own funding.
The reality is that it is not in the best interest of the government to have an educated and informed populace. Journalists have done a lot to hurt the image of politicians. So how is it in their best interest to fund journalism? It isn't. Public funding also opens the door to arguments over people not wanting their tax money used to support news coverage they don't agree with. In other words, it's a mess, and there's no easy solution.
It's gone so far as to some suggesting that the work of "serious journalists" should come up first in search results because they are presumbaly "accurate". You're right as far as the government having to decide who gets bailed out and on what criteria. Presumably a "serious journalist" graduated from J-school. What happens when administrations change? Is the subsidized periodical really free, or would we just have to reconsider that funding when a politician gets caught in the cookie jar and gets called out on it.
Once again, several here head for the Rush Limbaugh/Randi Rhodes school of hyperbole...
McDonalds isn't the ONLY successful restaurant in town. In fact, it's not the MOST successful restaurant in town. Why? Different folks have different tastes at different times. You go to McDonalds when you want a quick burger, not a great steak. Sometimes you'll settle for hamburger. Sometimes you want steak.
There is a market for straight, no frills news. There is also a market for the mixture of news, public affairs, and public interest, and infotainment delivered by the major network newscasts. And yes, there is a market for pure infotainment offered by ET and shows of that ilk.
What's the highest rated of the bunch? Network news. Why? Because it presents the most relatable composite of all the other forms. Network news also spends considerable money to create content and present it in a slick, palatable fashion. The American public responds to an aggregator that can separate the important and interesting from the unimportant, and who can figure out how to relate complex concepts and issues in a manner understandable to those who AREN'T policy wonks or political insiders, but have an IQ that exceeds room temperature.
What's happening here is a seismic shift in the delivery of that content. Much of the content was derived from daily newspapers, which are in serious economic danger. Part of that is the cost of production. Part of the problem is the same demon lashing radio - corporate consolidators who bought properties at inflated prices, and who are unable to support their debt structure in a shrinking marketplace.
I don't believe that the public will condone a government subsidy for journalism. What will happen is that the delivery system will right itself. Large presses, antiquated delivery of ink and paper, along with the attendent personnel expenses of production and distribution are where the costs will be cut. You want a paper? Fire up your printer.
The hard question is how to pay for the rest of the expenses - writers, reporters, editors, and the people who produce the content. Once it hits the web, we have a generation who feels no compunction about plagiarizing another's work for their own purposes. That's not much different from radio & TV stations who rip, rewrite, and read the local paper and call it a newscast, or producers who scour the daily paper for talk show fodder. So, it's not a new problem.
What is a new problem is getting people to pay for that content. On-line ads ain't gonna get the job done for some of the premium content providers, and subscriptions are anathema to the current generation of web users. My guess? Somebody's going to start charging access providers who want to connect to their website. Access providers will simply add those access charges to their monthly service bill. Cable TV has already created the model. You'll pay a extra for "enhanced services" - higher speeds, access to a "premium tier" of "channels". The guys who command a premium will be the companies that serve multiple platforms - text, audio, and video - and created audience demand.
The bottom line for broadcasters is that they'd better be prepared to produce content that's not available elsewhere, or to aggregate and deliver the right mix of content in a slick, palatable fashion. It's going to be damn hard to compete with national talents who do that very well. So, what's the alternative? Find those local people who do it very well, and deliver locally-focussed content targeted to a local audience. They'll be able to get the national content by other means anyway. If you don't have something unique to offer, you're going to be in trouble.
McDonalds isn't the ONLY successful restaurant in town. In fact, it's not the MOST successful restaurant in town. Why? Different folks have different tastes at different times. You go to McDonalds when you want a quick burger, not a great steak. Sometimes you'll settle for hamburger. Sometimes you want steak.
There is a market for straight, no frills news. There is also a market for the mixture of news, public affairs, and public interest, and infotainment delivered by the major network newscasts. And yes, there is a market for pure infotainment offered by ET and shows of that ilk.
What's the highest rated of the bunch? Network news. Why? Because it presents the most relatable composite of all the other forms. Network news also spends considerable money to create content and present it in a slick, palatable fashion. The American public responds to an aggregator that can separate the important and interesting from the unimportant, and who can figure out how to relate complex concepts and issues in a manner understandable to those who AREN'T policy wonks or political insiders, but have an IQ that exceeds room temperature.
What's happening here is a seismic shift in the delivery of that content. Much of the content was derived from daily newspapers, which are in serious economic danger. Part of that is the cost of production. Part of the problem is the same demon lashing radio - corporate consolidators who bought properties at inflated prices, and who are unable to support their debt structure in a shrinking marketplace.
I don't believe that the public will condone a government subsidy for journalism. What will happen is that the delivery system will right itself. Large presses, antiquated delivery of ink and paper, along with the attendent personnel expenses of production and distribution are where the costs will be cut. You want a paper? Fire up your printer.
The hard question is how to pay for the rest of the expenses - writers, reporters, editors, and the people who produce the content. Once it hits the web, we have a generation who feels no compunction about plagiarizing another's work for their own purposes. That's not much different from radio & TV stations who rip, rewrite, and read the local paper and call it a newscast, or producers who scour the daily paper for talk show fodder. So, it's not a new problem.
What is a new problem is getting people to pay for that content. On-line ads ain't gonna get the job done for some of the premium content providers, and subscriptions are anathema to the current generation of web users. My guess? Somebody's going to start charging access providers who want to connect to their website. Access providers will simply add those access charges to their monthly service bill. Cable TV has already created the model. You'll pay a extra for "enhanced services" - higher speeds, access to a "premium tier" of "channels". The guys who command a premium will be the companies that serve multiple platforms - text, audio, and video - and created audience demand.
The bottom line for broadcasters is that they'd better be prepared to produce content that's not available elsewhere, or to aggregate and deliver the right mix of content in a slick, palatable fashion. It's going to be damn hard to compete with national talents who do that very well. So, what's the alternative? Find those local people who do it very well, and deliver locally-focussed content targeted to a local audience. They'll be able to get the national content by other means anyway. If you don't have something unique to offer, you're going to be in trouble.
(Aha. I see another post has arrived. This was written in response to gr8oldies.)
Making self government work is a really messy business.
It is often said that freedom isn't free. We call the people who paid the price to establish it for us patriots.
Serious journalism, competent journalism, rational journalism is one of the essential ingredients of self government. How we encourage it, how we fund it, how we keep it out of the ditches when it ventures off the edge of the road "is a really messy business".
The modern day mantra "Let the market place handle it" didn't work for our banking industry as we are learning the hard way and isn't working very well for airline travel. The market place hasn't won any awards for managing our health care issues. And the market place management of journalism isn't bringing home report cards stamped "Honor Roll". Messy it is.
Making self government work is a really messy business.
It is often said that freedom isn't free. We call the people who paid the price to establish it for us patriots.
Serious journalism, competent journalism, rational journalism is one of the essential ingredients of self government. How we encourage it, how we fund it, how we keep it out of the ditches when it ventures off the edge of the road "is a really messy business".
The modern day mantra "Let the market place handle it" didn't work for our banking industry as we are learning the hard way and isn't working very well for airline travel. The market place hasn't won any awards for managing our health care issues. And the market place management of journalism isn't bringing home report cards stamped "Honor Roll". Messy it is.
gr8oldies said:
Here's the funny part: Those of us who graduated from J-school get pretty picky about specific schools. Going to Columbia or Penn might be more credible than going to Ball State. You also have those who attended, vs. those who graduated, and those who got the BA vs those who did the advanced study. How many awards have you won? And what makes an award-winning writer from the NY Times who has a Masters from Columbia more worthy of money than a guerilla journalist with a great mind who hasn't taken the time to get all the requisite sheepskin? Then you get the inherent biases of a liberal institution vs. a more conservative or even a faith-based college. Get my drift?
Problem is, Goat, no matter what anyone tries to do, the eggs aren't going to be unscrambled, and the bloggers aren't going away. The fact that a large part of the population doesn't trust old-line journalism and prefers their own sources also isn't going away. It used to be simple; the New York Times and Washington Post decided what was important and what people should think about it, and the nightly news echoed whatever the above newspapers decided was important that day. If you disagreed with the "proper" take or opinion, you could discuss it with your neighbors but that's as far as it went. Then everything changed.
- Status