Skip to comments.After CBS's Decision, Networks Face Many More
Posted on 10/26/2005 11:34:00 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
That has helped create the circumstances that are driving some of the broader reconsiderations of the business. Leslie Moonves, the CBS chairman who made the switch to Mr. McManus, had stirred the pot most aggressively by stating last January that he was looking for something radical and even revolutionary to replace Mr. Rather - a move away from what he called the "voice of God" anchor. At one point Mr. Moonves was quoted suggesting that he would like to blow up CBS News entirely.
Yesterday, Mr. Moonves said that comment was never serious and he had made it "out of frustration." That he wants changes at CBS News is still true; but with Mr. McManus, the longtime head of the CBS sports division, he has installed a solid, highly respected mainstream broadcast executive, not a revolutionary.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Sortof a side note: Would you be more interested in capturing an audience with sizable disposable income that spends wisely, or an audience with less[meager, even] disposable income that spends foolishly(that is, a fool and his money, so to speak).
Uh, caveat re question above; we're talking soap and like products for your target audience, right? Not yachts and summer homes.
If by that you mean, does commercial broadcast have more tendency to influence the great unwashed than the elite, you would have to supposte the former.
But I caution that it is not only the bottom of the economic ladder but also much of the top which goes for Democratic politics - the former is willing to be patronized as "poor," and the latter is willing to patronize "the poor." The Republican Party exists largely to protect the middle class from both the envious "poor" and the patronizing rich.
The "elite" may be stretching it a bit, but the rest of your response seems to clarify re the middle class. I suppose my point would be, it looks like the middle class has become all but persona non grata to the MSM, teevee programmers, et al. It also appears, to their dismay, the print media's chickens are coming home to roost. Will the purveyors of teevee programming be next since they don't seem to be doing all that well these days either. If they in fact have forsaken the middle class for nearsighted goals, have they not become the instruments of their own demise? They should maybe get a new prescription for their spectacles???
Television became the most powerful medium by virtue of its ability to reach a broad, near universal audience and motivate/inform them via the two primary senses -- sight and sound.
But television suffers from two unavoidable handicaps. Production is inherently expensive, by a considerable magnitude, compared to other media. Second, there is no such thing as spontaneity in television. Outside of sports and breaking news, you will never see an unprogrammed, unrehearsed event.
Once you have constrained TV programmers and writers with a budget and the inability to employ spontaneity, there is a finite limit to what amount of creativity is possible. With the arrival of so-called "reality" shows, it would appear we have reached that point...
True enough, but it takes a lot o' dough to keep any major enterprise going. And, given their almost unique "product", why would they have trouble generating enough revenue to create programming that "sells"? This powerful medium should be able to create a little something for everyone, but it seems they've chosen(?) to get down and dirty, thereby alienating much of their potential audience. A mystery?
Second, there is no such thing as spontaneity in television.
Maybe it's too dangerous. Still in all, it makes one wonder why?
Either is a valid marketing approach. It just depends on what your product is. For ex., it would be foolish to try to sell Ferraris in the inner city. A coke dealer or two might buy one, but (crime aside) you wouldn't make it. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't be good to put a "Dollar Store" on Rodeo Drive, although, oddly, we have a "Goodwill" store in Centerville, OH, one of the richer suburbs of Dayton, and my wife knows MANY fairly well-to-do people who shop there. I'm sure Clark Howard would!
Well, as I have often said, the rules by which the MSM mass-produce copy that will attract interest - "if it bleeds it leads for example - are not politically neutral. Those rules - which people who sign up to be reporters aspire to follow - patronize the middle class by contemptuously dismissing the middle class's need to focus on the bottom line (which tethers the middle class to the reality that small economies - "being cheap" - can be essential to stay in the middle class and avoid poverty).
Think of My Fair Lady, Professor Higgins and the father of Eliza Dolittle. Henry Higgins is too rich to fear being poor or even middle class, and Mr. Dolittle is too poor to have any hope of being middle class. This leads Dolittle to be philosophically compatible with - fascinating to - Higgins. But when Higgins endows Dolittle with enough income to have hope of staying out of the poorhouse - i.e., puts Dolittle in the middle class - Dolittle finds himself changed, no longer the person he was before. The money "ruins" him.
The MSM has an elite, Henry Higgins perspective which is contemptuous of middle class virtues. And promotes cultural influences which tend to keep the poor poor and to pull children of the middle class toward poverty.
And there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic Party and the MSM, because the Democratic Party has no principles which would seperate it from the MSM. The Democratic Party just goes with the flow of the MSM, and the MSM simply takes the Democratic Party for granted and sees the middle class party - the Republican Party - as terra incognito, a strange unfathomable beast.
Soap, not yachts.
Listen my friend, today's media does what yesterday's media did.
Whatever "Mr. Jensen" wants.
Honest, it's really no more complicated than that.
...think about it. ;^)
Maybe it's too dangerous. Still in all, it makes one wonder why?
Even shows that are "live" are usually "live to tape". This is to allow editing -- for commercials and other video inserts.
Thus, for purposes of timing and camerawork, virtually everything is rehearsed. That way, everybody involved -- on-camera talent, directors and cameramen -- can all know who will do what next.
Working on the skinniest of budgets, it still takes about three hours to tape a thirty minute show, live-to-tape.
I've known a few myself but I suspect Goodwill would locate a store in the area as much for a dropoff point as anything else, no? I dunno.
You missed my caveat in my post following re who prgramming, hence, advertising might be directed towards. Can you see how conservatives(middle class(?)) and flyover country may have been relegated to second class status by the media? I mean, WHO actually watches this stuff?
Only better.....or worse; depending on one's point of view? Anyway, point taken. For some reason it brings to mind an old Dan Seals(?) song; "Everything That Glitters is Not Gold". The patina that was the MSM is fading to black; or at least to dark grey. Everywhere we look nowadays there's bad news for the MSM. A shift is in the works? Humor me, awright ;^)
I suppose they must appear polished above all else, eh? It wouldn't do for our Ministry of Truth to appear to be anything but perfect. They have an image to maintain?
I don't know, but I will tell you this: despite demographic information that G rated movies ROUTINELY and OVERWHELMINGLY out-perform PG or R rated movies at the box office, Hollywood deliberately includes "hard" material so as to avoid the social stigma of doing "unsophisticated" movies. Likewise, who has more disposable income, a 19 year old or a 45 year old woman? But where is 80% of the marketing aimed? The 19 year old. Now, part of that, I know, is that the sellers are hoping to "lock in" life-long purchasing habits and brand loyalty. But still, it's the same as your question: why do they market to people who don't have as much financial clout? Because it's hipper, allows them to do more cutesy things in their ads, and gives them cocktail party conversation.
I doubt it. I think that MSM journalism is, was, and will be calibrated to prevent that. "Talk radio" is actually journalism which doesn't make the arrogant claim to objectivity. But "objective" journalism presumably will always make itself sufficiently believable to enough people to prevent conservatives from taking over the MSM.
Of course you know my favored solution to that conundrum:
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
It is curious isn't it? They must have some interesting business models (Such as they are).
Or maybe what many/some of us suspect is true, that is, they have ulterior motives, and uninhibited by any moral values, they charge ahead flinging $HIT everywhere, KNOWING at least some of it will stick. Ahem.
It's my contention that people who tend to watch their pap every night could care less; it supports their skewed vision of the world. You know, the O.J. jury types. Does the truth mean anything to them? Who do they vote for? Never mind ;^)