First Anniversary of Rathergate - What was ignored in this story
On One of the newssites I refer to, Orbusmax.com (a Drudgereport geared toward the Pacific Northwest), one of the headlines yesterday was that this was the first anniversary of Rathergate.
Remember Rathergate? Rather than making a big point of 'W's National Guard duty in 2000, CBS News did so in 2004. And CBS News had a fraudulent story. Which was first pointed out to by the blogs. Which lead to a retraction - and the removal of Dan Rather from the anchorman's position.
Undoubtedly, there is a left-wing bias in the mainstream media. Even Walter Cronkite wrote an apologia for this bias a few years back. However, at that time, when people were discussing Rather's removal, I tried to get my point across to a call-in talk show (whose host has a too high opinion of himself, and preferred to harrass a left-wing caller that day than deal with calls of substance). My point - why not drop the 6:00 newscast all together?
That was a ripe time for one of the former "Big 3" networks to drop it. The second generation of anchormen have now disappeared from their stage. Brokaw retired, Rather was disgraced, and Jennings is dead. This show keeps losing viewers year after year after year, since the advent of talk radio, and even more with the internet. Even for viewers loyal to their specific anchorman, that would have been a good time for at least one of the networks to drop their newscast.
There are several reasons why it would make sense to do so - none having to do with ideology. The audience for these programs is, well, old. They will start dying off soon. Those of younger generations get their news from many, many other sources. From cable (CNN, FOXNews). From radio (talk radio - all formats, NPR, and there are several pure news stations). A shortwave radio is affordable, and you can get BBC. There are lots and lots of newspapers. Then there is a myriad of news from the internet. In a way, Matt Drudge is America's new Cronkite (and Woodward, and Time Magazine - more about this in a later post). Not only do conservatives go to his page for news, but so do many liberals, as he primarily provides a headline, and provides a link to the story - many of which go against conventional conservative thinking. There are several conservative and left-wing sites, but there are unbiased sites like Google News and Yahoo News, too.
Some may argue that not everyone can afford this access. I personally think it is a bad idea to get news from the TV, as all other sources go into much more depth. However, even an indigent can get all the internet access in the world - all such a person needs is a library card. Radios are cheap, and newspapers are found in libraries.
In a sense, by the time the network news hits the screen, it is obsolete. And, it is at a fixed time. Are you going to interrupt a busy day to watch the 6:00 news (especially when so many more sources of news are so much more convenient?)
I can give a few reasons why one of the "Big 3" does not want to pull the plug on it's nightly newscast. One is that old people usually have a way to spend a lot of money, especially for all those medicines. Even money that does not belong to them, but rather to insurance plans and Medicare. So to get this money, they keep running the newscast, which old people will watch, and the pharmaceutical industry will keep handing over bundles and bundles of money to the networks so the viewers can "ask your doctor to see if [name of medicine] is right for you."
Another reason is they want their news to be seen as a "serious" endeavor. As if. Even Bearkly Breathard showed what fluff these newscasts were, and that was 20 years ago. And he is no conservative. There might be some benefit from those newsmagazine shows, but not the nightly newscasts.
I think another reason is the network executives, well, have their heads...These three networks operate off of a formula developed over fifty years ago. Soaps in the afternoon, then the news hour, then pre-prime time (usually game shows), then prime time drama/sitcoms, then the late-night shows, and sports on weekends, as well as cartoons on Saturday morning for the kids (do they still do this one? I don't know as I have no kids). And the sitcoms are usually lame. Unless they are "cutting edge" and then they are often stupid. Sometimes you get a "Desperate Housewives" but those successes are getting rarer and rarer for networks.
Network executives need to realize that times have changed, and need to change with the times. Even with a simple cable package, you can get 60 channels. It's not much more for 180 channels. Those channels appeal to every interest group out there - not only are there all-news channels, there are two history channels, science channels, home channels, sports channels, music channels, movie channels, kids channels, shopping channels, etc. etc. And if you are willing to pay a bit more, you can get those channels that show programs that aren't allowed on the networks. Someday there may even be a math channel. And then there is the internet to take time away from tv, as well as DVD players (and VCR's, which are themselves obsolete).
Not to mention that the new networks didn't even try a nightly news program. Are there three "new" ones (even Fox is almost 20 years old) since the so-called "golden age" of tv? They are developing according to new formulas to get an audience. And they are doing nitch markets for their own channels.
In an oligopolistic model, there are few choices to consumers. The three networks are still operating as if they are oligopolies. They are trying to appeal to everyone. This idea is very obsolete. Think of the three networks as the typewriters of the television industry. And they will continue to lose share, until no one watches them. Or at least they will be hemorrhaging cash at such a rate that management will be forced to change them. Eventually they are going to have to face the music and re-orientate themselves to a specific market. No more days of writing shows that most of America watches, as that is not possible. And they will have to stop being essentially carbon-copies of one-another, like they could get away with 30 years ago.
I would suggest they do what they do best - keep the major-league sports (although they will now compete with the new networks, as has been shown), the soaps, some news magazines, and maybe focus on locating a nitch market for writing dramas/sitcoms. Late-night may eventually go by the wayside (since there is a lot for night owls to watch nowadays, and some middle-age guy giving interviews isn't as interesting to someone who can find a channel that interests them more). And allow affiliates to provide some of their own programming. However, they will eventually have to dump the stuff where they can no longer compete - such as Saturday morning cartoons, if they haven't already dumped them. And the nightly newscast.
Maybe even one of the networks can keep the nightly newscast, for the old people to go to, who are in the habit of watching it. I think that the day will come when a network will announce that it is cutting that program, to the shock of many. But old habits die hard, especially those that are over 50 years old.
The scandal of Rathergate showed the American people not to have faith in the old ways of doing news. It is time the three networks learn that America will increasingly turn from the nightly newscast, there will be few viewers, and to survive the huge financial drain this creates, pull the plug on this show.
Remember Rathergate? Rather than making a big point of 'W's National Guard duty in 2000, CBS News did so in 2004. And CBS News had a fraudulent story. Which was first pointed out to by the blogs. Which lead to a retraction - and the removal of Dan Rather from the anchorman's position.
Undoubtedly, there is a left-wing bias in the mainstream media. Even Walter Cronkite wrote an apologia for this bias a few years back. However, at that time, when people were discussing Rather's removal, I tried to get my point across to a call-in talk show (whose host has a too high opinion of himself, and preferred to harrass a left-wing caller that day than deal with calls of substance). My point - why not drop the 6:00 newscast all together?
That was a ripe time for one of the former "Big 3" networks to drop it. The second generation of anchormen have now disappeared from their stage. Brokaw retired, Rather was disgraced, and Jennings is dead. This show keeps losing viewers year after year after year, since the advent of talk radio, and even more with the internet. Even for viewers loyal to their specific anchorman, that would have been a good time for at least one of the networks to drop their newscast.
There are several reasons why it would make sense to do so - none having to do with ideology. The audience for these programs is, well, old. They will start dying off soon. Those of younger generations get their news from many, many other sources. From cable (CNN, FOXNews). From radio (talk radio - all formats, NPR, and there are several pure news stations). A shortwave radio is affordable, and you can get BBC. There are lots and lots of newspapers. Then there is a myriad of news from the internet. In a way, Matt Drudge is America's new Cronkite (and Woodward, and Time Magazine - more about this in a later post). Not only do conservatives go to his page for news, but so do many liberals, as he primarily provides a headline, and provides a link to the story - many of which go against conventional conservative thinking. There are several conservative and left-wing sites, but there are unbiased sites like Google News and Yahoo News, too.
Some may argue that not everyone can afford this access. I personally think it is a bad idea to get news from the TV, as all other sources go into much more depth. However, even an indigent can get all the internet access in the world - all such a person needs is a library card. Radios are cheap, and newspapers are found in libraries.
In a sense, by the time the network news hits the screen, it is obsolete. And, it is at a fixed time. Are you going to interrupt a busy day to watch the 6:00 news (especially when so many more sources of news are so much more convenient?)
I can give a few reasons why one of the "Big 3" does not want to pull the plug on it's nightly newscast. One is that old people usually have a way to spend a lot of money, especially for all those medicines. Even money that does not belong to them, but rather to insurance plans and Medicare. So to get this money, they keep running the newscast, which old people will watch, and the pharmaceutical industry will keep handing over bundles and bundles of money to the networks so the viewers can "ask your doctor to see if [name of medicine] is right for you."
Another reason is they want their news to be seen as a "serious" endeavor. As if. Even Bearkly Breathard showed what fluff these newscasts were, and that was 20 years ago. And he is no conservative. There might be some benefit from those newsmagazine shows, but not the nightly newscasts.
I think another reason is the network executives, well, have their heads...These three networks operate off of a formula developed over fifty years ago. Soaps in the afternoon, then the news hour, then pre-prime time (usually game shows), then prime time drama/sitcoms, then the late-night shows, and sports on weekends, as well as cartoons on Saturday morning for the kids (do they still do this one? I don't know as I have no kids). And the sitcoms are usually lame. Unless they are "cutting edge" and then they are often stupid. Sometimes you get a "Desperate Housewives" but those successes are getting rarer and rarer for networks.
Network executives need to realize that times have changed, and need to change with the times. Even with a simple cable package, you can get 60 channels. It's not much more for 180 channels. Those channels appeal to every interest group out there - not only are there all-news channels, there are two history channels, science channels, home channels, sports channels, music channels, movie channels, kids channels, shopping channels, etc. etc. And if you are willing to pay a bit more, you can get those channels that show programs that aren't allowed on the networks. Someday there may even be a math channel. And then there is the internet to take time away from tv, as well as DVD players (and VCR's, which are themselves obsolete).
Not to mention that the new networks didn't even try a nightly news program. Are there three "new" ones (even Fox is almost 20 years old) since the so-called "golden age" of tv? They are developing according to new formulas to get an audience. And they are doing nitch markets for their own channels.
In an oligopolistic model, there are few choices to consumers. The three networks are still operating as if they are oligopolies. They are trying to appeal to everyone. This idea is very obsolete. Think of the three networks as the typewriters of the television industry. And they will continue to lose share, until no one watches them. Or at least they will be hemorrhaging cash at such a rate that management will be forced to change them. Eventually they are going to have to face the music and re-orientate themselves to a specific market. No more days of writing shows that most of America watches, as that is not possible. And they will have to stop being essentially carbon-copies of one-another, like they could get away with 30 years ago.
I would suggest they do what they do best - keep the major-league sports (although they will now compete with the new networks, as has been shown), the soaps, some news magazines, and maybe focus on locating a nitch market for writing dramas/sitcoms. Late-night may eventually go by the wayside (since there is a lot for night owls to watch nowadays, and some middle-age guy giving interviews isn't as interesting to someone who can find a channel that interests them more). And allow affiliates to provide some of their own programming. However, they will eventually have to dump the stuff where they can no longer compete - such as Saturday morning cartoons, if they haven't already dumped them. And the nightly newscast.
Maybe even one of the networks can keep the nightly newscast, for the old people to go to, who are in the habit of watching it. I think that the day will come when a network will announce that it is cutting that program, to the shock of many. But old habits die hard, especially those that are over 50 years old.
The scandal of Rathergate showed the American people not to have faith in the old ways of doing news. It is time the three networks learn that America will increasingly turn from the nightly newscast, there will be few viewers, and to survive the huge financial drain this creates, pull the plug on this show.
posted by EricMatthew at 10:26 PM
<< Home