Posted on 12/17/2007 12:12:13 PM PST by abb
That's already happened to a large degree. Most local affiliates will most of their day with syndicated programming. Nearly all are on the air 24 hours a day, with the network providing a smaller and smaller slice of the programming pie. Morning and evening news, the 8-11 prime time block, and sporting events -- that's all most stations get from the network. Maybe one or two daytime soaps, but there are fewer of those than there used to be.
I don't remember the last time I saw a theatrical movie aired on a big-three network. They used to be a mainstay. For that matter, made for TV movies and miniseries have largely shifted to the cable nets. With video rentals and sales, downloads and on-demand cable, who wants to sit through commercials?
Network evening news broadcasts will go dark after the '08 elections and their news divisions will be disbanded.
Not a chance it will happen that fast. The Big Three evening newscasts combined still draw about ten times the audience of the cable news networks.
But the more important fact to remember is that the news divisions don't just work to produce that one half-hour a day. The morning shows make real money, and they have enough local affiliates to offer local weather and traffic, stuff folks want to know when they're getting ready for work and which cable can't deliver. News magazine shows are cheap enough to produce that they can be profitable even if they're not huge ratings winners.
What you probably will see in short order is a continuation of the trend of the last 20 years -- fewer bureaus, fewer correspondents in the field, more reliance on agencies and affiliates. More talking heads and celebrity fluff, because those are a lot less expensive than putting a lot of crews on a lot of planes.
It's pretty much the same phenomenon that has happened to newspapers. Few newspapers have correspondents or even stringers spread out across the country -- they use the AP for out-of-town newsgathering. Or big companies like Gannett, McClatchy, the NYT and the Trib share stories between their papers. When your local paper puts together its national and international sections, they do far more aggregating than reporting.
We love Psych and House. Lately, we’ve been watching Psych reruns via the USA website. We also watch House via FOX.com because we often are out of the house when the show airs.
I was in "The Slugger's Wife" with Rebecca DeMornay [*]. DeMornay was in "Risky Business" with Tom Cruise. Cruise was in "A Few Good Men" with Kevin Bacon. I have a Bacon number of three.
[*] Extra in scenes shot at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium.
Not to be too terribly argumentative here, but if what you say happens, will they still be "news" divisions? Or will they then be just another "entertainment" division?
My point is that if you take ALL the programming produced by the news divsions - evening, morning, primetime - and forced them to carry the overhead of all the reporters, producers, staff and so forth, it would be a net loser. I'm suggesting the entertainment totes the freight and "news" as networks have produced for decades doesn't make money.
I was in an episode of "Sex in the City" with Sara Jessica Parker, who was in Footloose with Kevin Bacon. :-)
FYI: I am working the cafe in the background as she and her boyfriend (played by Baryshinikov) are chatting in front of the tables. Got paid twice: once as an extra and again for merely showing up for my regular job at the time!
You mean their "dem shill (KISS DEM BUTT) divisions will be disbanded. Oh the horror....
I was in “Two Weeks’ Notice” with Sandra Bullock [*]. Bullock was in “Loverboy” with Kevin Bacon. I have a Bacon number of two.
[*] Extra in scenes shot at Shea Stadium.
That's a valid question. It's also one you could ask now, and you could ask it of news organizations in any medium. And it's not just a question of chasing cheezy sensational stories in search of ratings or skimping on serious news to save money, though those certainly are important factors.
Even a high-minded and serious journalist has to think about ratings sometimes. If you're doing the best reporting around from Iraq or Darfur, you can't blow off stories like Anna Nicole Smith. Because if you don't cover Anna Nicole, your audience will turn to someone who does, and no one will see your reports on Iraq and Darfur. But most of what you report is tabloid crap, it's hard to take the war reporting seriously. It's a tough balance.
My point is that if you take ALL the programming produced by the news divsions - evening, morning, primetime - and forced them to carry the overhead of all the reporters, producers, staff and so forth, it would be a net loser. I'm suggesting the entertainment totes the freight and "news" as networks have produced for decades doesn't make money.
Network news has always been a loss-leader. CNN was the first broadcaster to consistently turn a profit on TV news. The networks broadcast news because it's good for their brand identity, and it helps attract affiliates. There has always been enough profit from the entertainment programming to cover the losses, but that is changing.
That's my point. And I think it will happen quickly. Brand identity be damned, the stockholders want ROI (return on investment). The suits aren't going to risk their jobs to save the newsies. The newsies can caterwaul all they want - if the numbers aren't there to float the payroll, they're history.
They need to cut expenses, and I know just how they can do it: Replace the evening shows with stand up comedians that tell lots of hate America, hate Bush, hate Conservatives, hate Businesses jokes. There is a downside: Viewers wouldn’t notice much of a change.
What they'll do is give the time back to the affiliates. The affiliates are sucking wind just like the networks and the early evening time is their most valuable.
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/07/rather_says_odds_getting_longe.php
July 23, 2007
Rather Says Odds Getting Longer for Couric By Greg Baumann
Dan Rather, who last month accused broadcast networks of dumbing down and tarting up their newscasts, said he can foresee a time when media company executives retreat from evening news production.
“I think we’ll see the time when someone at the top says, ‘We can give this time back to affiliates,’” Mr. Rather said Monday in a discussion with TelevisionWeek Publisher and Editorial Director Chuck Ross at the Cable & Telecommunications Association for Marketing convention in Washington.
The BEST BBC comedy stuff I've seen (Blackadder, Red Dwarf) came in 6-episode seasons. Those were well thought out segments, brilliantly acted, that I can watch and still laugh my butt off. Compare that to the 13 or 26 week seasons on American tv. The quality is lower, weaker stories, lurching into the "controversial" or the "tragic."
My local PBS station could make a KILLING if they were to grab some great comedy or drama and SHOW IT DURING THE "WRITERS'" STRIKE. But they don't. Instead they launch endless supplies of "Celtic Women" and "DooWop Parade." Mind you, the women are easy on the eyes, and Doo Wop is great, but the same thing, weekly?
As Oscar Leroy would say, "What a bunch of nimrods!"
'The Closer' and 'Monk' are the only two series I watch. They both deserve awards.
It actually had decent ratings, but the demographics were horrible with women: young girls and old ladies, but not teen girls or young women.
From what I heard, had their been a final season, whatever her name was (Vicki?) was supposed to have been deleted and replaced with her evil counterpart . . . couldn't have been worse, I guess . . .
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.