Category Archives: Fox News

CNN: the “E.R.” of TV news?

By Chris Daly

Insightful piece today by Brian Stelter in the Times. It raises the question: Is CNN like the emergency room of a hospital that cannot fill its inpatient beds? CNN is very busy during crises, but it becomes a lonely place during periods of routine news. That certainly rings true in my experience: on an election night, I’m a visitor of CNN for sure. If I hear a snatch of something startling on the radio and want to hear/see more right away, I will snap on CNN. If all hell is breaking loose somewhere, it’s usually my top choice (certainly far ahead of cable-news leader Fox News, which has so few correspondents who can jump on breaking news).

Fundamentally, this problem has been with CNN almost from the get-go. Here’s an excerpt from my book, Covering America, about the founding of CNN and its basic business problem. 

. . .By approaching cable news this way, [CNN founder Ted] Turner was coincidentally creating a new business model for TV journalism. Unlike the networks, CNN did not plan to build a huge entertainment division that would have to create or bid for programs. And unlike public television, CNN was not dependent on public subsidies, foundation grants, or donations from the audience. Instead, Turner was adapting an older business model from newspapers. In the CNN approach, TV news would be paid for through a “dual revenue stream.” Just as newspapers made money from two sources—advertising and subscriptions—so would CNN. The company would sell ads, and it would also have a steady stream of revenue coming in from the cable operators, who had to pay CNN a few pennies per customer per month, reflecting CNN’s share of the monthly cable TV bills that Americans were getting used to paying. With low costs and two fairly reliable streams of revenue, news on cable just might work.

Ready or not, on June 1, 1980, CNN made its debut. There were the inevitable mishaps (the cleaning lady who walked across the set behind the anchor while the cameras were rolling), but the impressive thing was that it worked. CNN started covering the news that day and has done so continuously ever since—days, nights, weekends, holidays. Only the AP could make a similar claim, (though it supplies news to the industry rather than directly to the public). Soon, Turner was showing the skeptics that it was in fact possible to put news on television round the clock. Yes, it was sometimes raggedy. And yes, there was a lot still to accomplish—including hammering out reciprocal video-sharing agreements with affiliates, hiring more and more staff, opening bureaus around the world. But it worked.

By the end of 1981, CNN was getting established. It was reaching 10 million households and was clawing its way to journalistic parity with the network news divisions.18 One key issue was what is known as “pool coverage.” This occurs in many settings when there is not enough room to accommodate all the media people who wish to cover some location or event, such as a courtroom, a presidential appearance with limited access, or the like. In those cases, the answer is a pool, in which all the journalists in each medium agree to cooperate. Typically, each medium gets to put one representative at the scene. In return for that access, the chosen journalist agrees to share the results with all the other members of the pool in the same medium. In addition, each member of the pool agrees to take a turn in providing the feed. This arrangement assumes, of course, that anyone participating in the pool will produce work of high enough quality to satisfy all the others. CNN was originally scorned by the networks, which refused to let CNN crews participate in the White House television pool coverage. It took a lawsuit (which cost Turner another $1 million), but eventually CNN was allowed in.

One of the early tests of CNN as a news organization came on March 30, 1981. President Reagan gave a speech that day to the AFL-CIO at the Washington Hilton. CNN covered the speech live and then, when it was over, switched to some filler material, about sewing in China. While that was airing, the police scanner in CNN’s Washington bureau barked: “Shots fired . . . Hilton Hotel.” Almost immediately, the veteran newscaster Bernard Shaw sat down in the anchor chair in the CNN Washington bureau and began reporting that shots had been fired at the president—a full four minutes before the networks. Shaw stayed in the chair for more than seven hours, and, with help from Dan Schorr, proved that the fledgling news service could keep up with the established networks. Through the evening, CNN kept breaking in with new details: a picture of the shooter’s home, a report on his motive, pictures of the vice president in Texas heading to Washington. According to one account of that day: “Such details were hitting the air in no particular sequence. CNN’s viewers got the story in the jumbled way a journalist receives fragments of information before transforming them into an orderly, polished report. The ‘process’ of gathering news determined the form in which that news was delivered.” Before CNN, viewers had received their news in measured doses at fixed times; now they were drinking straight from the fire hose.

For years, CNN cost more to produce than it brought in through the combined revenues of cable subscriptions and advertising. The network was burning through Ted Turner’s personal wealth at an unsustainable rate. The early years were a desperate race to get CNN included in enough viewers’ basic cable packages to pay for itself. Most of the costs of gathering and disseminating the news by cable were fixed; the great variable was the size of the audience. Beginning in 1978, from the pre-launch investments in people, property, satellite time, and equipment, CNN lost an estimated $77 million through 1984.20 But then in 1985, CNN began posting profits: $20 million that year and more in the coming years. In the grow-or-die spirit of modern capitalism, Turner soon started thinking about acquiring other businesses. At the same time, a profitable CNN was looking more attractive to other investors, who might try to take it over. By the end of the decade, CNN was earning almost $90 million a year and had an estimated value of $1.5 billion. At the decade mark, on June 1, 1990, it could be seen in 53 million homes in the United States and in eighty-four countries worldwide. CNN had nine U.S. bureaus and another eighteen overseas, with a global total of some 1,800 employees. CNN had arrived. . .

 

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, CNN, Fox News, Journalism, journalism history, media

“Not a Fit Person”

By Chris Daly 

Well, now it’s official. Something that many people have thought for a long time is now part of the findings of a British parliamentary report: Rupert Murdoch is “not a fit person” to run a globe-straddling, influence-buying, phone-hacking, official-bribing media conglomerate.

Actually, the report released Tuesday may not be Murdoch’s biggest problem. He is already under investigation in the United States as well. Murdoch became a U.S. citizen in the mid-1980s, a move that facilitated his move into American broadcasting (since U.S. law requires that broadcasting remain in the hands of U.S. citizens). Perhaps more serious for Murdoch is the fact that his News Corp. (parent company of the British unit that is in trouble in Parliament) is a U.S. corporation, registered on the New York Stock Exchange. That means that News Corp. is subject to all the laws and regulations of the United States — including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That law, dating to the 1970s, forbids U.S. companies from using their assets to pay bribes to officials in other countries. On the face of it, that would appear to make it a crime in the U.S. for News Corp. employees to do what they have already admitted under oath in Parliament: for years, they paid British police police officials for tips about their investigations.

If I were Murdoch (or even a shareholder in News Corp., which operates Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, among many others), that’s what I would be really worried about.

Recent stories are here, here and here.

News Corp. world headquarters in Manhattan / Kathy Willens (AP)

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, Fox News, Journalism, journalism history

“Things went wrong. . .”

by Chris Daly 

So said James Murdoch on Thursday in his second round of questioning before a Parliamentary committee investigating his management of part of the News Corp. empire. At the same time, Murdoch insists that he was not in the loop and did not know that phone hacking and other forms of journalistic skullduggery were rampant at the now-shuttered Murdoch-owned tabloid News of the World. (“My goodness, James, where do your reporters get all that material?”) Hmmm. . . .

So far, the younger Murdoch seems to be toughing it out.

 

Here are accounts by the NYTimes, the British Guardian, and (from way, way down the page), the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal

Key question: Can everyone in this story be telling the truth?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Fox News, Journalism

The Murdoch hearing (cont.)

By Chris Daly 

James Murdoch, son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, is set to appear again Thursday before a committee of the British Parliament to answers about the behavior of Murdoch employees in Britain.

 

The NYTimes has a preview today, along with a couple of sidebars.

 

But the most extensive coverage I have found is in the Guardian, which seems determined to try to topple the entire Murdoch empire.

He has already been asked so many questions on so many subjects that it seems unlikely he could avoid making mistakes and possibly worse. He may want to bring a bodyguard (like his dad’s wife, Wendi — shown below waging a counter-attack against a prankster who tried to “pie” Rupert during an earlier round of Parliamentary hearings.)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Fox News, Journalism

Free Speech and its limits

By Chris Daly 

Here’s a story that nicely illustrates the limits of the First Amendment. Many people wrongly think that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech (and of “the press”) in all settings, all the time. Not so.

The First Amendment is written so that it prevents the government from censoring speech before it can reach its intended audience. The First Amendment says nothing about private parties, like Fox or News Corp. Private parties are free to censor their employees, and they are not shy about doing so.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that News Corp. would choose to censor Alec Baldwin. He has no recourse against News Corp. under the First Amendment, because there was no government action involved. His best revenge is to shout about it to every other news outlet he can find.

So, a hat tip to the NYTimes‘ Brian Stelter for giving this story some attention.

(At the same time, the whole episode implicitly makes the case for having diversity in the news media, so that even Rupert Murdoch cannot control absolutely everything.)

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, Fox News, Journalism, New York Times

More news about the news

By Chris Daly

More news today about journalism.

~First, an update from the NYTimes about the harrowing captivity of four of its own journalists (including Tyler Hicks, a BU alum who will be the commencement speaker this spring at BU’s College of Communication — assuming he stays out of any further serious trouble). And thanks to Joe Klein, on today’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, for pointing out that when certain people (he mentioned Sarah Palin) whine about the “lame-stream media,” they should realize that they are disrespecting people who deserve better. 

 

Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Whither Glenn Beck? Who the heck knows?

 

~Thanks to Michael Miller for pointing this out, here are some interesting further thoughts on the NYTimes pay model (including bold assertions about the future) from John Gruber at Daring Fireball. (With a name like Daring Fireball, no wonder he’s so confident about his predictions…)

 

~A happy prospect: help-wanted from Talking Points Memo, which is seeking to fill a new position, that of associate editor for Washington news. Here’s the take-away:

Crackerjack news judgment, experience as an editor and deep familiarity with politics and political news are each a must. Competitive salary for qualified applicants; health care, three weeks annual vacation and 401k benefits provided.

 

Glad to see health care benefits being offered. Wonder what is meant by “competitive salary”. . .

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under broadcasting, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Journalism, New York Times

Olbermann Gave Lots Less than his Boss

By Chris Daly

So, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC has already nearly served his sentence for donating a total of $7,200 to Democrats.

First things first: The conditions under which he works are not a matter of theory, or constitutional interpretation, or wishful thinking, or anything else. He has a contract, which requires him to abide by NBC News policies. Any time a journalist accepts a check in return for full-time employment, he or she is no longer a free agent. If you take the money, you accept the rules. If you don’t like them, you can quit (and regain all your freedoms, except the freedom to cash those paychecks). So, that part of this flap is a no-brainer.

Still, we may want to step back from that and ask the broader question: In general, is it a good idea for journalists to donate to political candidates? (And a corollary: is it an equally good idea for reporters as for columnists or other opinion-mongers?)

Opinions vary (as they should). Some journalists have never bought into the ideal of political neutrality. There is a long tradition of advocacy journalism in America — in fact, it goes back much further in our history than the professional/objective model.

Fox News, for example, apparently does not impose a no-giving rule on its talent. Thus, not only did Rupert Murdoch donate to conservatives this season, so did Sean Hannity — without any punishment.

Back to Olbermann and MSNBC. He broke a company policy and got punished. That was the company’s prerogative, but was it a good idea? Was it hypocritical?

I would say there is a blatant double-standard, based on the track record of political donations by NBC executives. Find out about NBC president Robert Wright here. Go to the FEC records to see the donation record of Wright’s boss, Jeffrey Immelt, the chairman and CEO of GE  (which still owns NBC).

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that an argument can be made for banning and for allowing donations. What I can’t see is why it is OK to ban donations by the help but allow donations by the top brass.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Fox News, Journalism, media, Olbermann, Politics

No comment

The latest on Fox News.

Here, in Politico. And here, in the Times.

Actually, I will venture to ask this question:

Is Fox News the fourth U.S. television network, or the third U.S. political party?

What do you think?

Leave a comment

Filed under Fox News, Journalism, New York Times, Politics

Is Obama Reading Journalism History?

by Chris Daly

It looks that way, judging from his new interview in Rolling Stone. He was asked by RS founder/editor Jann Wenner for his opinion about Fox News. Here’s the relevant chunk:

What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s a good institution for America and for democracy?
[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.

Leave a comment

Filed under Fox News, journalism history, President Obama