Sunday, November 07, 2004
The Post-Election Media
Sunday, November 7, 2004. The Post-Election Media.
Sinclair Broadcasting was widely criticized in the press and liberal blogs for running pro-Bush editorials and an anti-Kerry documentary in prime time on its television stations. One group was so upset it filed with the FCC to get the Sinclair licenses. The press also reported that many advertisers pulled their advertising from the Sinclair stations that ran the anti-Kerry documentary--advertisers notoriously shy away from controversy and content they consider to be an inappropriate environment for their commercials.
But what about newspapers? Do advertisers shy away from newspapers that run editorials contrary to an advertisers point of view? No. So why shy away from television stations that run a controversial prime-time special? I suspect the answer is that advertisers steer clear of contorversy when they have alternatives. There are lots of alternatives to the Sinclair television stations which is not a group with stations with must-buy ratings. Whereas, there are few, and in most cases no, alternatives for newspaper advertisers.
So what is future of editorials and pro-candidate programs on television? Poor, I think. Bottom-line oriented CEOs and boards of directors will be scared away from controversial programming by reports of Sinclair's advertisers' defection.--everyone except Sinclair's CEO, David Smith, who claims that his company made money on the anti-Kerry program and will continue to do issue-oriented programming and editorials, according to Media Post's Wayne Friedman in his Novemebr 5, TV Watch Column.
I don't think Friedman believes Smith, nor do I, and, more important, I don't think other broadcasters will. The trend in recent years has been for televison networks and stations not to editorialize and to steer clear of contoversary (with the exception of the "60 Minutes'" Rathergate fisco). That controversy will more than likely make CBS and the networks more cautious, especially because they will not want to irritate the Bush White House and the Republican-dominated FCC, which they hope will expand station ownership limits and go easier on indecency. So don't expect any changes in television, and that includes Fox News's and Sinclair's pro-conservative approach. And, don't expect the FCC to give Sinclair's licenses to anyone else.
What about newspapers? It is clear that newspaper editorials don't have a major impact on the way people vote in national elections. Kerry endorsements outnumbered Bush endoresements from newspapers this year, but so what. There were several newspapers, including USA Today, that did not endorse presidential candidates. USA Today's founder and current columnist, Al Neuharth, does not believe newspapers should endorse candidates. USA Today is a national newspaper, and the number-one circultation daily in country and, thus, attemtps to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Could it be that USA Today's neutrality is part of the reason it has grown and increased its circulation lead over number two, the Wall Street Journal and number three, the New York Times, both of which endorse candidates?
The New York Times, with its endoresement of Kerry, reinforced to the Red states that is the voice of the Eastern liberal establishment, which is anethma to the Red states. Can the New York Times ever fulfill its national expansion goals if it continues to be seen as a New York liberal paper? Probably not.
As newspaper circulation continues to decline and bottom-line pressures plague the print business, I would not be surprised to see many newspapers continue to endorse local candidates but not to endorse national condidates--to take a USA Today approach to neutrality and try to avoid alienating either side of the political divide. The concept of going down the middle (sometimes referred to as objectivity, which we realize now is not possible) originated in the 1800s when publishers of partisan newspapers realized they could double their circulation and, therefore their advertising revenue by being neutral and appealing to both sides. I expect more newspapers to take this approach over the next four years.
What about the partisan media of today, especially blogs and radio? Blogs have had a extraordinary impact on the political scene this year and have come into their own as a source of news, opinion, and discourse. Dan Gillmor, in his breakthrough book, We the Media, suggests that blogs are the media of information in the future. Blogs took a step back this past week when several of them posted early exit polls that showed Kerry in the lead, which led to a short surge in Kerry futures in the stock market and too early euphoria among the Kerry campaigners. And the authors of at least two of the most read blogs, Daily Kos and Press Think, have indicated they are tired of the daily pressure to blog and are asking for contributors to share the burden of posting, so there might be a decline in the quality and timeliness of blogs for a while. However, I expect blogs such as Talking Points, Instant Pundit, and the The Note to increase in readership and usage as sources of information and opinion. Recent research has indicated that 34 percent of people 18-54 get their news from the Internet. I expect that to increase to almost 50 percent in the next four years.
Radio is a different matter. I expext partisan radio to decline, especially liberal radio. I don't expect Air America Radio to last the year out. Al Franken is Air American Radio's biggest draw and his goal when he started was to see that George Bush was defeated. So much for that.
Perhaps the anti-Bush blogs and Air America Radio will learn that just being against something doesn't work. It worked for Rush Limbaugh in bashing the Clintons, but that was a common sport at the time and easy to do. I expect Rush's influence to decline as radio audiences continue to decline--a slow but irreversible decline.
In summary, less poltical partisanship and controversy in television, fewer endorsement editorials in newspapers, more partisanship and influence of blogs, and less influence of radio.
Sinclair Broadcasting was widely criticized in the press and liberal blogs for running pro-Bush editorials and an anti-Kerry documentary in prime time on its television stations. One group was so upset it filed with the FCC to get the Sinclair licenses. The press also reported that many advertisers pulled their advertising from the Sinclair stations that ran the anti-Kerry documentary--advertisers notoriously shy away from controversy and content they consider to be an inappropriate environment for their commercials.
But what about newspapers? Do advertisers shy away from newspapers that run editorials contrary to an advertisers point of view? No. So why shy away from television stations that run a controversial prime-time special? I suspect the answer is that advertisers steer clear of contorversy when they have alternatives. There are lots of alternatives to the Sinclair television stations which is not a group with stations with must-buy ratings. Whereas, there are few, and in most cases no, alternatives for newspaper advertisers.
So what is future of editorials and pro-candidate programs on television? Poor, I think. Bottom-line oriented CEOs and boards of directors will be scared away from controversial programming by reports of Sinclair's advertisers' defection.--everyone except Sinclair's CEO, David Smith, who claims that his company made money on the anti-Kerry program and will continue to do issue-oriented programming and editorials, according to Media Post's Wayne Friedman in his Novemebr 5, TV Watch Column.
I don't think Friedman believes Smith, nor do I, and, more important, I don't think other broadcasters will. The trend in recent years has been for televison networks and stations not to editorialize and to steer clear of contoversary (with the exception of the "60 Minutes'" Rathergate fisco). That controversy will more than likely make CBS and the networks more cautious, especially because they will not want to irritate the Bush White House and the Republican-dominated FCC, which they hope will expand station ownership limits and go easier on indecency. So don't expect any changes in television, and that includes Fox News's and Sinclair's pro-conservative approach. And, don't expect the FCC to give Sinclair's licenses to anyone else.
What about newspapers? It is clear that newspaper editorials don't have a major impact on the way people vote in national elections. Kerry endorsements outnumbered Bush endoresements from newspapers this year, but so what. There were several newspapers, including USA Today, that did not endorse presidential candidates. USA Today's founder and current columnist, Al Neuharth, does not believe newspapers should endorse candidates. USA Today is a national newspaper, and the number-one circultation daily in country and, thus, attemtps to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Could it be that USA Today's neutrality is part of the reason it has grown and increased its circulation lead over number two, the Wall Street Journal and number three, the New York Times, both of which endorse candidates?
The New York Times, with its endoresement of Kerry, reinforced to the Red states that is the voice of the Eastern liberal establishment, which is anethma to the Red states. Can the New York Times ever fulfill its national expansion goals if it continues to be seen as a New York liberal paper? Probably not.
As newspaper circulation continues to decline and bottom-line pressures plague the print business, I would not be surprised to see many newspapers continue to endorse local candidates but not to endorse national condidates--to take a USA Today approach to neutrality and try to avoid alienating either side of the political divide. The concept of going down the middle (sometimes referred to as objectivity, which we realize now is not possible) originated in the 1800s when publishers of partisan newspapers realized they could double their circulation and, therefore their advertising revenue by being neutral and appealing to both sides. I expect more newspapers to take this approach over the next four years.
What about the partisan media of today, especially blogs and radio? Blogs have had a extraordinary impact on the political scene this year and have come into their own as a source of news, opinion, and discourse. Dan Gillmor, in his breakthrough book, We the Media, suggests that blogs are the media of information in the future. Blogs took a step back this past week when several of them posted early exit polls that showed Kerry in the lead, which led to a short surge in Kerry futures in the stock market and too early euphoria among the Kerry campaigners. And the authors of at least two of the most read blogs, Daily Kos and Press Think, have indicated they are tired of the daily pressure to blog and are asking for contributors to share the burden of posting, so there might be a decline in the quality and timeliness of blogs for a while. However, I expect blogs such as Talking Points, Instant Pundit, and the The Note to increase in readership and usage as sources of information and opinion. Recent research has indicated that 34 percent of people 18-54 get their news from the Internet. I expect that to increase to almost 50 percent in the next four years.
Radio is a different matter. I expext partisan radio to decline, especially liberal radio. I don't expect Air America Radio to last the year out. Al Franken is Air American Radio's biggest draw and his goal when he started was to see that George Bush was defeated. So much for that.
Perhaps the anti-Bush blogs and Air America Radio will learn that just being against something doesn't work. It worked for Rush Limbaugh in bashing the Clintons, but that was a common sport at the time and easy to do. I expect Rush's influence to decline as radio audiences continue to decline--a slow but irreversible decline.
In summary, less poltical partisanship and controversy in television, fewer endorsement editorials in newspapers, more partisanship and influence of blogs, and less influence of radio.
Comments:
Post a Comment
