Sure about that?
Posted on 03/01/2010 2:20:16 AM PST by abb
ABC News is making no secret about what is behind the sweeping staff cuts it now faces: raw survival instinct.
“I just looked out at the next five years and was concerned that we could not sustain doing what we were doing,” said David Westin, the president of ABC News, as he explained the decision last week to jettison up to 400 staff members, a quarter of the news staff, in the coming months.
The same compelling motive already instigated strategic retrenchment at ABC’s broadcast competitors. NBC, the one network with a cable news channel, MSNBC — and, not coincidentally, the only network in a sound position of profitability — has drastically pared down its operations over the last few years. So has CBS, which is losing money already and has cut about 70 jobs this year.
But with news available more places than ever, on cable channels and Internet sites, and with revenue challenged by heavy dependence on shrinking advertising dollars, the future for the news divisions at ABC and CBS remains deeply insecure.
“Long term, it’s going to get harder for these guys to exist as they are currently constructed, with the exception of NBC because it can offload the costs on MSNBC,” Michael Nathanson, an industry analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, said.
The economic problems facing ABC News and CBS News in many ways mirror those faced by newspapers, which have been similarly afflicted by a drop in advertising revenue. The reaction — severe cuts in personnel and other costs — also looks to be the same.
But can you shrink your way to prosperity? Andrew Heyward said of the ABC cuts: “The real issue after this is what will drive growth? How do you generate more profit? And this doesn’t address that.”
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Fox can afford them?
DON'T THESE PEOPLE AT ABC CARE?????
Sure about that?
“You’d think these journalist and executives would even remotely get a clue, but apparently ignorant, arrogant dumbasses never learn!”
The Left considers itself to be the educated elite but their arrogance is their undoing. Newsprint started heading down hill around 1970. TV journalism was a little later. If they can’t take a hint after this lengthy period of time of decline what would make you think they would even remotely get a clue?
Fox doesn’t have a (broadcast) news division at all. The topic is network news divisions, Alex.
No, NBC broadcast is making a profit, because they offload their costs to MSNBC.
Yeah, how’s that hopey-changey thing working out for all the people who lied for him? Obama single-handedly rebuilt the conservative movement.
... At least that that’s the implication of the article. Seems to me, as I think about it, that I read that NBC got sold because it’s helping bleed GE dry.
I live in the live and death realm. My perspective spands time. That success is very temporary.
NBC/U is making money, just not as much as before. The cable channels (SyFy, Discovery, etc) are profitable. But whether the NEWS DIVISION is profitable, I don’t know. I’ve always heard CNBC is their cash cow, since their demographic is very desirable and they can charge high ad rates.
This isn’t good news. They’re cutting costs by transforming themselves from a news gathering agency with a strong bias, to one of simply reading Party talking points and the news releases of the Establishment Left. (Obviously, this transformation has been going on for a long time.)
Bernie Goldberg’s “Bias” is obsolete. It doesn’t even matter now whether journalists have bias; journalists have nothing to do with TV News.
Presenting unbiased news people want to see is simply not in the business plan. “Creative Division” simply wouldn’t stand for it, and it creates poor lead-in for shows based on trashy sex, murder, and compulsive behavior. And the shows are based on those things, because advertisers rely on people being influenced by trashy sex, compulsive behavior, and prevailing world view dominated by evil. It also conflicts with the four-hour-long informercials known as Morning News/Talk.
The best hope is that the networks get out of evening news altogether, but that would discredit the morning infomercials, so it’s gonna have to get a lot worse still.
Yeah, I think I’ve heard that about CNBC. Funny how MSNBC doesn’t hurt CNBC’s credibility. There seems to be an understanding in the business community that MSNBC is entertainment division, like SyFy.
we got news from the scene faster then the cable news and regular networks could provide...
Every high schooler will realize this sooner or later.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/03/americans_are_getting_their_ne.html
Pew: Internet surpasses newspapers, radio for news
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/anderson-cooper-said-to-meet-with-cbs-news-executives/
Anderson Cooper Said to Meet With CBS News Executives
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8542430.stm
Online ‘more popular than newspapers’ in US
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-biz-0301-burns—20100301,0,2192494.column
Playboy’s focus centers on outsourcing, shrinking
http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/03/loving-mobile-and-print-five-key-findings-from-pews-new-news-study/
Loving mobile and print: Five key findings from Pew’s new news study
http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/03/the-right-information-the-right-way-at-the-right-time/
The right information, the right way, at the right time
As far as I can see, there are no investigative reporters left. There are a few bright reporters who actually pick up the news one way or another and go with it. But the number of people going out in the field—and then leaving their hotel or the bar—is virtually nil.
Clinton got them hooked on the faxed talking points. And they can always re-shuffle the NY Times or the Washington ComPost, when they come up with a leaked interview.
But almost all of their highest-paid employees are talking heads, who read the propaganda that is put in front of them. Or on the NY Times OpEd page, they sit in the office or the bar and make up their column, never going out to check anything first hand.
You don’t need to actually visit the White House to know that Obama has a sharp crease in his trousers, or to repeat that he’s a greater orator than Abe Lincoln. Investigation would just make it harder to write those stories.
So, how many news staffers do you actually need? I imagine they no longer get their talking points via fax. Most likely they get them in MS Word or whatever format can go straight to the printers.
Probably Adobe PDF...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0310/CooperCBS_meeting_took_place_months_ago.html
Cooper’s spox shoots down CBS rumor
http://www.cjr.org/feature/tangled_web_1.php?page=all
A CJR survey finds that magazines are allowing their Web sites to erode journalistic standards
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F1BEE054-18FE-70B2-A81A44D12F91A4C0
Edwards epilogue: Does the press really vet presidential candidates?
Every high schooler will realize this sooner or later.
You can safely bet that they already know it.
I notice you didn't venture an estimate as to how long "after the 2008 elections" your prophecy would come to pass...
A fair criticism. I must admit the timing of my prediction was off, but I stand by the eventual outcome. The NY Times story says as much.
And it cannot be denied the impact of the network evening newscasts is lessening.
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.