Media Curmudgeon

« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »

September 24, 2008

CNBC Vs. Fox Bimbo News

On Tuesday and Wednesday I watched CNBC and Fox Business News (FBN) cover the biggest financial crisis in the country’s history and the appearance of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke before the Senate and Congressional Banking Committees. It was the Super Bowl of television business news coverage – like The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal’s coverage of 9/11. CNBC won hands down over Fox Bimbo News.

Not that CNBC’s coverage was flawless, it fumbled the ball at least once while I was watching, but overall what I saw and heard on CNBC was far more intelligent, more knowledgeable, and graphically more relevant than the coverage on FBN.

CBNC’s anchors and reporters were far more knowledgeable about the complexities of the financial crisis than those on FBN. I got the distinct impression that, in general, CNBC chose its on-air people based on their knowledge and expertise and FBN chose its on-air people based on their looks and personality. No big surprise here. Although, there was at least one anchor (in the morning) on FBN who was both attractive and seemed to know what she was talking about, but a couple of the male guests and FNB reporters on her segment were clueless.

How do I know who is clueless and who isn’t about this unbelievably complex situation? Because I usually know when I listen to people if they are smarter than I am (which is usually the case). If someone knows about as much as I do about a subject, then I figure he or she is not that smart, so I go somewhere else to learn what I don’t know. So for two days I kept coming back to CNBC and leaving FBN.

CNBC fumbled the ball on Tuesday when chief economic reporter, Steve Liesman (unnecessarily accusative and obnoxious) got into a extended, nasty on-air fight with “Squawk on the Street” anchor Mark Haines (defensively outraged), which “Squawk on the Street” co-anchor Erin Burnett handled nicely and professionally – she came out if looking a lot better than either of the males, and I don’t mean “looking” having to do with looks.

On Tuesday CBNC had a highly visible and readable graphic on a split screen when Paulson and Bernanke were testifying that showed second-by-second stock market movement (Dow Jones and other averages) and the US dollar value vs. other currencies. This graphic was cool because you could see what effect Paulson and Bernanke’s testimony and the Senators’ reactions had on the markets and on the dollar – smart. FBN had confusing bouillabaisse of graphics on the bottom third of the screen – dumb because it was hard to read and hard to make sense of. On the second day (Wednesday), FBN didn’t learn much from CNBC’s better coverage and graphics and didn’t change its graphics approach. I suppose it didn’t want to give CNBC the sincerest form of flattery – not in FOX’s DNA.

Also, CNBC had a good, readable graphic on a ticker that was a summary of Paulson and Bernanke’s testimony—smart and helpful.

What did we learn about the players in the hearings – Paulson, Bernanke, the senators, and congressmen on the Senate and House committees? We learned that Paulson, who played tackle on the Dartmouth football team, looked and talked like an offensive lineman – big, tough, pushy, and aggressive, barely masked by an outward deference to the committee members. Bernanke surprised me. We learned that as a former university professor (almost my favorite kind of person), Bernanke had the ability to explain complex issues and make them understandable. He was a quite, calm intelligent star. He was the cool, smart quarterback who had a big tough tackle blocking for him – a good combination.

The majority of the senators and congressmen performed as you would expect. Most of them weren’t asking questions of Paulson and Bernanke (appointed by a Republican president); they were grandstanding to their constituencies and to the public. It was typically boring, embarrassing, and dumb browbeating. The two exceptions were the chairs of the committees: Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank (both Democrats). They got it and moved things along.

America is fortunate to have Dodd and Frank represent us, Paulson and Bernanke blocking and tackling for us, and CNBC informing us about the crisis. What about FBN? About as deep in knowledge and expertise and about as qualified to do the job as its favorite vice-presidential candidate.

Posted by Charles Warner at 4:59 PM | Comments (2) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at September 25, 2008 12:12 AM writes:

---

Bruce Braun at September 24, 2008 6:36 PM writes:

---

September 12, 2008

Did NBC Open Pandora’s TV Box?

A reader of my blog and a former student asked me “…what do you think of the Google TV model? (Dish Network beta and now NBC Cable properties)?” Here’s what I wrote:

I think Google will sell some inventory. Some questions are: Do the advertisers who buy via Google have effective enough commercials to get results? Will the cable inventory that NBC gives Google to sell have audiences big enough to get advertisers results? Will the smaller advertisers who buy via Google’s auctions stick with it long enough to get results? Will large advertisers and/or their agencies buy via Google’s auction instead of buying from salespeople in the hopes of saving money?

The potential for Google’s auction model is to disintermediate salespeople, regardless of what NBC might say to reassure its sales force.

Google has its foot in the network TV door, or, probably, a better metaphor is that Pandora’s TV box has been opened. NBC TV executives will reassure its sales force that this decision will in no way effect their jobs and that there is no way that they will ever give valuable prime time MSNBC or NBC TV Network inventory to Google to sell.

But the situation reminds me of the time when a younger, thinner Bill Gates (not Seinfeld’s current TV buddy) offered to buy Encyclopedia Britannica so he could digitize the information and sell it on a CD. The CEO of EB was horrified and said “no” emphatically because it would decimate EB’s “most valuable asset” – its 25,000 world-wide sales force. The dummy thought EB’s most valuable assets were the door-to-door salespeople who manipulated parents into buying a bookshelf full of information printed on dead-tree paper and not the intellectual content on the paper.

So Gates, said, “OK,” bought World Book, created Encarta on CD, and put EB out of business and its 25,000 salespeople out of work. The Web then put Encarta out of business, and now Google is trying to put Microsoft out of business, and, thus, the Gates-Seinfeld commercial.

The Internet was a disruptive technology that no one could have predicted beforehand, and that no one at the time it was created could have predicted what consequences it would subsequently have. Did Tim Berners-Lee think when he conceived of the Internet that it would eventually put newspapers out of business? Of course not. When Brin and Page created Google, it was a disruptive technology that no one could have predicted, and at the time it was created could have predicted that it would become the biggest advertising medium in the world.

The Internet and Google are black swans, which according to Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his extraordinary book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, are highly improbable events that are impossible to predict but have huge consequences.

Selling TV by means of Google’s online auction model is a black swan. No one can predict what eventual effect it will have on the sale of broadcast and cable TV network, national spot television, and local television inventory. My sense is that if advertising agencies and advertisers find they can buy TV inventory faster and cheaper without engaging in the time-consuming buying, selling, and negotiating process, they will force the salespersonless auction model on sellers.

But we’ll see now that NBC has opened Pandora’s TV box and let Google in.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:52 AM | Comments (0) | Print |

September 11, 2008

Neil Derrough Responds

Neil Derrough, former president of the CBS Television Stations Division, writes:

"The analysis you did of the MSNBC situation covered a lot of issues. I agree with a lot of what you said. I have to add to your thoughtful examination where I think MSNBC really went wrong. You are right that NBC News plays a critical role in their predicament. The NBC News decision to have commentators Chris Matthews and Keith Obberman play leading roles with debates and conventions lead to the loss of journalistic independence that should be demanded for such events. If their partisan ranting had only been a part of their own shows or political discussions, the outcry most likely would not have lead to this embarrassing very public demotion.

I must point out that your dim view of Fox must not allow you to give them the credit for keeping their commentators away from hosting such events. I don’t want to argue about who is the most outrageous, Matthews, Obberman, O’Reilly or Hannity. What is clear is that the Fox commentators are for the biggest part clearly identified as what they are. They all make me cringe at times but if they are opining within their own shows I take my chances when I watch them. However, if I’m watching a debate and see Chris Matthews make a mockery of one of the first debates, I lose confidence in the news organization that put him in that role. By the way, I think someone was smart enough to only let that happen once. NBC was not smart enough to foresee the potential firestorm that these two would create by hosting the convention coverage. That decision has cost NBC News dearly. I submit that the outcry and subsequent adjustments were certainly not “wimping out” but the right thing to do and hopefully and indication that some adults at NBC have come to their senses."

Posted by Charles Warner at 9:51 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

September 10, 2008

MSNBC - “The Place For Politics?”

Cable network MSNBC touts itself as “The Place for Politics,” but it’s really the place for stumbling.

MSNBC announced earlier this week that it was demoting Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Here’s how The New York Times put it:

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

But did the change come as a direct result of complaints from the McCain campaign? Did NBC cave into pressure? It sure looks like it. Sarah Palin mentioned media bias in her Republican convention speech and the crowd shouted “NBC, NBC!” And the McCain campaign staff, like Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff previously, whined often about biased coverage from MSNBC. This kind of stuff is enough to shake up NBCU CEO Jeff Zucker and NBC News president Steve Capus. They must have realized that the self-absorbed, narcissistic Matthews and, especially, Olbermann had gone too far – way over the top – and that the two of them were threatening NBC News’s reputation for unbiased reporting.

Zucker and Capus should have seen it coming, but the NBC brass had become addicted to the improved ratings the acerbic, caustic, biased ranting of Olbermann and Matthews had delivered. They should have known that the McCain campaign, like the Rove-directed Bush campaign, would run against the “liberal media.” It’s in the Republican playbook and they knew it. They should have realized that if they got ratings with the biased rants, they would get pressure from the conservatives, who don’t complain if no one is watching. But NBC appears to be caving into the pressure by making the change so soon after the Republican beefed.

The FOX cable news network gets away with biased, unbalanced rants because its parent network doesn’t have a news division that pretends to be unbiased. FOX News’s Roger Ailes is biased and proud of it – it’s the FOX News brand image.

If MSNBC had been only a cable news network and not associated with NBC News, had not used NBC News talent such as Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, and Andrea Mitchell, and had tilted to the left with Olbermann and Matthews, it would have branded itself as a liberal alternative and possibly prospered. Keith and Chris put on a good show, as Jon Fine in his BusinessWeek Fine On Media blog wrote:

Olbermann-Matthews was a sports talk radio thing dressed in political clothes: two hosts, apparent mutual antipathy, arguments, a jagged edge to the simplest interactions. And, by the way, I’ve got no problem with such a set-up, given that we’re talking about what’s essentially color commentary. Like sports, everyone on live political TV is working off the exact same fact-set, which is revealed to everyone at the same time.

On the other hand, patently liberal-biased media such as Air America Radio have not been economically successful and might be even less successful if Obama wins. Although, it is possible that Olbermann and Matthews could be economically successful if they continued their sports-talk thing. People might have watched to see the sparks fly, but not for politics.

And that’s a problem with the slogan “The Place for Politics,” it indicates that it’s not the place for news when the election is over in two months. If Obama wins, MSNBC with Chris and Keith could become the exciting house organ for the Democrats, as FOX News has been for the Republicans. And if McCain wins, it could be the nasty opposition – something Olbermann is a master at. Then, MSNBC could position itself as “The Fair and Balanced Place for Liberals,” which might work.

But MSNBC wimped out. It looks like it caved into McCain’s complaints, which will anger liberals. It looks like it opted for dullness. David Gregory? FOX news didn’t get to be the number-one cable news network by being dull and balanced, but by being controversial and obnoxious. MSNBC should have learned from FOX if it wants ratings, which it apparently doesn’t – not as long as it thinks it is “The Place for Politics” and not for biased sports-talk-radio type ranting.

Posted by Charles Warner at 10:18 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at September 11, 2008 10:51 AM writes:

---

September 2, 2008

Issues You Won’t Hear on Cable News

A new low point in cable news occurred this week with the focus on Sarah Palin’s family issues. Even after Barack Obama correctly and firmly said that family matters should be kept out of political coverage, cable news bloviators, like the gossip junkies they are, couldn’t help themselves. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, as usual, was the worst offender.

But there was one issue that I never heard covered on cable news, network news, or even NPR, and that was a plank in the Democratic platform that was touted to “clarify” the public interest obligations for broadcasters. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6590162.html .

Here’s the last sentence in a paragraph titled “A Connected America” in the platform. See if you think it clarifies anything:

We will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.

The entire issue of regulating broadcasting was relegated to one relatively short sentence in a long paragraph about how a Democratic administration would deal with the Internet. This positioning reflects the relative importance of broadcasting versus the Internet in the minds of the Democrats and of the American people.

American parents are probably more concerned about predators on the Internet than about their children seeing half a second of Janet Jackson’s uncovered breast. Would that the FCC felt the same way, but its prudishness was at least overturned by the courts.

One ambiguous phrase in the Democratic platform dealt with the proposed reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, proposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberals hoping to muzzle Rush Limbaugh and other conservative bloviators. The phrase “clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum” clarifies nothing and will leave a Democratic-majority FCC clueless if Obama is elected.

The FCC should not reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and clarifying broadcasters’ public interest obligations is a good idea in principle, but almost impossible to implement. Plus, any “clarification” will apply only to radio and television stations and not to terrestrial television networks and, more importantly, not to cable networks where unfairness and indecency are rampant and serving the public interest is a joke, except for a few cable networks such as CSpan.

CSspan became the star of convention coverage by allowing people to judge for themselves about the conventions and the speeches. Even PBS got tiring with its old, mostly ugly, and holier-than-thou pundits and historians boring us to death. Come on, guys, let the politicians bore us; don’t prolong it.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:11 AM | Comments (1) | Print |

KMashek at September 2, 2008 11:29 AM writes:

---