The Impending Entertainment News Realignment

Big League Politics ^ | 6/5/2017 | LS

[LS]

With the firing, then death, of Roger Ailes, the departure of Bill O’Reilly, and the swirling rumors about Sean Hannity either leaving or being fired at Fox News, many conservatives flippantly insist that any one (or combination) of these and other conservative entertainers/news people could “start their own network.” It’s certainly possible that the right combination of entertainers and capitalists could buy an existing structure and form it into a network—itself a mammoth undertaking, but not impossible—but start one from scratch?

It’s worth the time to recall how Fox News got to where it is today. In 1986 20th Century Fox television began operations, first with a Joan Rivers late night show (a failed undertaking that got her permanently banned from Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show), then in 1987, with “Married . . . With Children” and “The Tracey Ullman Show,” then added a show a week on Sundays only.

It gradually expanded its lineup and then added Mondays with “The Simpsons,” which remains the longest running sitcom in television (27 years). Fox Television fought its way into competition with the “Big Three” for entertainment value by the early 1990s. In 1996, Rupert Murdoch founded Fox News Channel (FNC) and appointed Roger Ailes as the CEO, with its ratings surpassing those of rival CNN in 2002. Bill O’Reilly’s show, first called “The O’Reillly Report,” then changed to “The O’Reilly Factor” was also started in 1996, along with “Your World With Neil Cavuto” and “Hannity & Colmes.” Murdoch, meanwhile, had acquired a significant interest in Fox in 1985. In 2013, FNC was split off from 21st Century Fox entertainment, including 20th Century Fox Television.

Currently, the stock repurchase price of 21st Century Fox is $4.96 billion. That’s with a “b.” The company’s revenues have shrunk from $31.8 billion in 2014 to $27.6 billion in 2016. Of that, the films account for 31% of the income—down from 33% in 2015—and television (including FNC) yields $5.1 billion in revenues (up from $4.89 in 2015). Television, while seeing more revenue, has witnessed its share of the company’s overall revenue fall from 19% in 2015 to 17%, mostly due to affiliate fees. Sports can be a money maker if Fox carries the Super Bowl, but the NFL keeps raising its rates too. Still, there appears to be no good news on the horizon. In December 2014, the company’s stock stood at $37.32 per share, compared to today’s price of around $24. Both the net sales and net income through the first three months of 2017 are down (5.7% and 3.9%, respectively. Meanwhile, despite a huge hit with “Deadpool” (over $280 million), Fox’s film revenues declined by $1 billion in 2016, producing fewer blockbusters than 2015.

The film industry, as everyone knows, is somewhere between a slow descent and a death spiral. Hollywood execs measure their tenure in months instead of decades. Studio wizards who had presided over a string of hits are now fired for a single pending bad quarter. The latest blockbuster to tank appears to be Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s “Baywatch,” and despite a few tentpole super-hero/spandex movies, it’s entirely likely that at least one major studio could leave the scene in the next year. In short, for FNC, it will not be possible for even a committed conservative leadership (which the company doesn’t have) to subsidize a conservative news organization the way Jeff Bezos can prop up the Washington Post with Amazon millions, or Carlos Slim can keep the struggling New York Times on life support with outside cash. A thriving Hollywood, with the right leadership, could have provided a nice buffer for FNC. No more.

What does all this mean for the Hannity, and FNC? First, while television revenues are up, sports remains a key driver. And since overall the television affiliate continues to lose its share of revenues, FNC has a problem. The Murdoch boys can play it safe and hold fast to the conservative audience that built Fox News, but this would require them to suppress their Inner Liberal (as well as that of their wives). If one lives inside the LA/NY/DC bubble, and thinks Donald Trump and his supporters are toxic, it might appear on the surface that shifting leftward would be a good business move. Again, though, that requires that one live in the bubble. Fox’s only chance to avoid irrelevance is to tack much harder to the right, not only keeping Hannity, but recruiting strong Trump defenders such as Laura Ingraham, or witty iconoclasts such as Mark Steyn.

That is, of course, if one is approaching FNC’s problems through a business eye. It’s unlikely that’s the case with the Murdoch boys, who seem intent on virtue-signaling to the Hollywood and New York elites. In such a case, falling revenues are less important than rising social status.

And as for that “new network?” The history of Fox shows that it was carefully planned, with FNC only “arriving” some 17 years after launch of the network itself. Most of all, Fox’s history shows that from the outset its leadership understood the core value of entertainment. However informative Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck are, the entertainment value of watching someone do a live radio show on television rates down there with “The Great Octopus Cookoff” and “Recycling Kings.” And entertainment ain’t cheap. Any new competitor must be phenomenally well-capitalized (in the billions), have a clear business plan that focuses on entertainment value first, and which is in it for the long haul—at least five years before seeing success. Right now, few such billionaires with a conservative vision are raising their hands.

[joshua c]

Or create opportunities for more competition, ie new owners.

Stop funding the existing liberal media cartel.

Cut your cable tv. They get a subscriber fee whether you watch or not.
Purchase local, store brands rather than national brands. The national brands fund the liberal media cartel.
Eat out at local restaurants, stay away from chains. The restaurant chains fund the liberal media cartel.

Please feel free to add to the list.

[gunnyg]

And THE OBVIOUS!...Why NOT Mister Trump HIMSELF!???????????
************

The TRUMP Network USA!

************************

[Guenevere]

Sad I am :(

[semantic]

We finally cut our cable TV. It was bundled with our cable 'net (Time Warner), so it took a little bit of haggling. The customer service reps have obviously been trained on trying to keep TV customers. They get these kinds of calls all day long - they know better than anyone the reality of the situation.

So, now all we have is high speed cable internet routed through a wireless, which is perfect for our PCs, smart phones and streaming. We just got a new Vizio - which seems to be the hot item since it came out 2 mos ago - that has Roku and every other streaming service built in.*

* Except Amz - we had to buy a Firestick, but since we're prime customers, we get the service for 'free'. And yes, I'm perfectly aware we're supporting Bezos & Wapo. Still, it feels great not to have the crap networks getting a cut of the cable TV fee whether we watch them or not. (Haven't in 15-20 years.)

[seastay]

Cable TV will go the way of our blighted inner cities, as technology moved people out to the suburbs, so are the better off and more productive people moving away from network, and cable TV over to the new digital frontier. A bundled dedicated carrier, be it FCC airwaves, satellite or cable is becoming outdated. Internet TV on demand will be the wave of the future, because people want choices, to watch not only what the want, but when they want, and they don't want to pay for 200 other channels they aren't watching, but will just subscribe to the ones they want piecemeal... For this reason the tyranny of the liberal strong hold on the press is done,,,Fox may be done too,,but so are all the others and that may be a good thing.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks so much for your support to this point... I personally apprecaite it...
FReepers, it's time to wrap up this FReep-a-thon.  Lets do it...

President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America

Ramirez political cartoon: Economic Climate Change LARGE VERSION 06/03/2017: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).

Please join the monthlies, an automated and the best way to help support Free Republic.  If you opt not to join the automated monthly support program, please consider joining the One One Done project.  LINK

FReepers, 84.69% of the Second Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $274.00 to 85.00%

[LS]

I agree. First provider to offer individualized menu of x$ per channel selected-—with no “packages”-—wins for the time being.

[savagesusie]

The monopoly on our “news” has got to end. Even Fox News was controlled to a large extent. I remember when O’Reilly was forced to say “French Youths” instead of Muslim youths, over a decade ago and he complied with his controllers. (Got to control the narrative/emotions of the masses.) Religion of Peace-—that lie was repeated over and over and over as “equality” repeated for sodomites to flip good and evil so our legal system is now a Vice System which will collapse civil society. It is a matter of time. Virtue and Truth is essential for Freedom—and all Just Laws promote public virtue only—not socialism (theft) or baby-killing or lies of sodomy—all vice promotion destroy Objective Truth (Our Constitution) and corrupts children.

The Hegelian Dialectic put in place by the psychopathic elites has to control ALL our information and that is what they have been doing since 1916 (and earlier). They have gotten us into all the wars, etc., by their lies and propaganda since their funded War of 1812-—and they funded the French Revolution and chaos, also for their dialectic (to force us into a NWO—order from the ashes).

We need free competition in the news again (It was taken over completely by 1920)-—the great young muckrakers (truth), like Ida Tarbell, have to be set free again. They have to have a platform to debate their ideas. Now, those like Tarbell, with Truth are banned for PC (Marxism). Truth (God) was killed a century ago in Europe and by 1950 in America for the takeover by the evil psychopaths.

The CIA-controlled “news” (Operation Mockingbird) even in the 30s with the evil Walter Duranty’s who won the Pulitzer (for control of our emotions/”truth” about wonderful communism) and the lies were and are repeated in all newspapers—lies over and over, so it becomes the “truth”, so we are deluded and brainwashed, as our children are. They are totally ignorant of all of our true history.

Whoever controls the information will control the beliefs, etc. of the masses. It is the M.O. of Marxists/Elites, known since the 1700s. We need to take back the information—the textbooks—go to original source documents, Classics and the Great Books/Bible for Truth. Truth will set us free. Christian worldview only led to the Age of Reason and the most just, free nations in the history of the World; Individualism and free will (Natural Rights Theory/God’s Laws (Christianity)) No other worldview is based on truth and right reason (Natural Laws/Objective Truth).

That is why the US Constitution (freedom) must be restored again. It is the most perfect political document in the history of the World. It was ejected unconstitutionally in 1912 with the founding of the Federal Reserve and Marxist “income tax”.

[1Old Pro]

We need “open architecture” for the evening news so that competition can increase.

[Agamemnon]

I helped myself to OANN on Apple TV this past weekend. Liked what I saw. Reminded me of the early days (c. 1982) of CNN Headline news when you could still get it with rabbit ears. News. Only news. Just the facts ma'am and without all the liberal spin. 1-minute ad break and then back to the broadcast - like it was back in the '60's.

But CNN headline news I am talking about was back in the day when Jesse Helms and Ted Turner were still friends and before Ted began shacking up with Jane Fonda. USA Today came out about that same time too. It was fresh and a worthy competition to the ossified MY/DC/Chic/LA media. Today it is no different from them - like CNN, totally co-opted.

There was chatter about TrumpTV as a possible opposition media voice last fall should Trump's campaign fail. We won and chatter subsided.

What I think I'd like to see is a melding together of OANN (presently west-coast, San Diego) and their sharp presenters/commentators (loved Liz Wheeler) and under the guidance of "Breitbart Bannon" roll out BretibartTV, to become the new conservative media giant. Give Drudge a show like Fox did at one time -- major sleuthing and expose stuff. Throw something to Greta Van Sustren.

Hey, if this Seth Rich thing gets beyond the control of the elites and Putin keeps talking about the US intelligence community that causes people to see some patterns between today and how things were handled during the JFK cover-up, and George Webb decides he wants a TV show instead of 5 You Tube videos a day, I think BretbartTV could become the David that slays the Giant.

Have magazine shows based off the blog brands: BreitbartTV presents ... "Big Government," "Big Journalism," "Big Hollywood," "Big Politics," "Big Business - with Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo." And then for some lighter entertainment - "Big Boobs - starring Bill O'Reilly" (The Boob Factor? -- Nah ...), "Hannity's Heroes," "Tucker 'n the BowTies."

Fox News can then just be left to do "The Five" from 8 - 11PM EST, and reruns of the same beginning at 11 PM for insomniacs.

I don't think it would be that hard to ramp up a brand when and if the SHTF.

FReegards!

[spokeshave]

There was some talk last year BDjT (BDjT = before Trump presidency) that Kurshner was looking at a media company....his group already owns a newspaper.

[LS]

Probably if anyone has a shot its OANN, but it would require a significant ENTERTAINMENT quotient beyond just talking heads.

This is because it would now have to draw viewers from all the others, and I’m not sure straight news could do it 24/7. But news, documentaries, original (like the old 60 minutes) investigative pieces could work.

[CopperTop]

I've been diggin OANN and their historical shorts in between segments. The one lady is a bit hard to understand sometimes between talking thru her nose and a slight Valley Girl accent. They screw up just enough to make it all seem a bit more personable. Hehehe. d:^)

Maria Bartiromo- Izzit me or does she always look like she had a "great" prior evening? (i.e. rode hard and put up wet)

[Agamemnon]

I fondly remember Maria looking particularly "benevolent" at the Al Smith dinner last fall when Trump did the post-debate skewering of Clinton.

FReegards!

[bitt]

great synopsis
great suggestions..