[quote]vroom wrote:
Ah yes, I forgot. If it fills the bank account then it must be right. The almighty dollar knows right and wrong… and greed would never enter the picture.[/quote]
How did you get to this?
Are you reacting to TB?
Because that’s nothing like what he said.
Here is a more recent article:
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_economics.asp?cat=4&media=5
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Todd, Todd, Toddski:
I’ve told you what I meant re the poverty thing.
We’ve had a long drawn out pissing match over the Razor–to the point where we’re essentially arguing the meaning of “is”–and still you flail and attack.
What is this for you? GPP for the typing fingers?
At what point are you going to grill RainJack and ThunderBolt in the same manner you’ve treated me?
They’ve disagreed with you too.
Boo hoo for you.
[/quote]
Joe,
I am confident that you, RJ, and TB will retain your same views well after I'm done posting on this board. In the meantime, I'm content to run circles around you, and engage in RJ and TB in a discussion. Part of participating in a discussion is recognizing when you're wrong and recognizing where your views (or your knowledge) might be weak. If you care to review some of my posts, I have recognized when others have pointed out flaws in my argument.
But you, Joe, are an idiot. You certainly make personal attacks 'til your heart’s content, and then you cry when you get a taste of your own medicine. It is adequately clear to me that you lack the knowledge and the horsepower to be trading barbs on this board because you continually succeed in making yourself look progressively more ignorant. Thank you for your concern. Now please go answer the questions that I have asked you.
Todd
Do you really want to offer this article as proof? Even the author admits that the gap between CNN and Fox is all but obliterated.
The graph that is offered only estimates for 2004. I would expect that CNN, after a healthy 10 run as the darling of Cable News will be in a solid 2nd place after 2005.
Were I supporter of your thinking, and I read that report, I would be seeking shelter to avoid the huge crash.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Are you saying that Fox is doing something wrong by meeting a need in the market place? [/quote]
Is Fox or any cable or network news, or news peroidical meeting the need in the market place… seems a bit naive. They meet the needs of their funding sources. It’s not right or wrong, it just is.
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe,
I am confident that you, RJ, and TB will retain your same views well after I'm done posting on this board. In the meantime, I'm content to run circles around you, and engage in RJ and TB in a discussion. Part of participating in a discussion is recognizing when you're wrong and recognizing where your views (or your knowledge) might be weak. If you care to review some of my posts, I have recognized when others have pointed out flaws in my argument.
But you, Joe, are an idiot. You certainly make personal attacks 'til your heart’s content, and then you cry when you get a taste of your own medicine. It is adequately clear to me that you lack the knowledge and the horsepower to be trading barbs on this board because you continually succeed in making yourself look progressively more ignorant. Thank you for your concern. Now please go answer the questions that I have asked you.
Todd
[/quote]
Thanks for the kind words, they’re much appreciated.
Sorry if you’ve perceived any personal attacks coming from me, I’ve tried very hard not to, and when someone mentioned something I’d said that might be perceived as such I’ve apologized, because that’s certainly not why I’m here.
As for your questions–I thought I’d answered them?
About the poverty and about the Razor.
What else did you have? Perhaps the problem is that you weren’t clear in your presentation?
Or perhaps they fall under the heading of “start a new thread, don’t hijack this one”?
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Here is a more recent article:
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_economics.asp?cat=4&media=5[/quote]
so basically, CNN makes more money than Fox because CNN–having been around for years and years–can charge more for it’s ads than Fox can, but this year Fox will be able to begin raising ad prices, and we’ll probably see advertisers gravitating to Fox–and so it won’t be long at all before Fox is not only at the top of the ratings but also the top of profits.
Can it not be extrapolated that this means the majority of Americans want “fair and balanced” and not the same old lib tripe?
[quote]Bodhisattva wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Are you saying that Fox is doing something wrong by meeting a need in the market place?
Is Fox or any cable or network news, or news peroidical meeting the need in the market place… seems a bit naive. They meet the needs of their funding sources. It’s not right or wrong, it just is.
[/quote]
What? That makes no sense. The funding sources are the market place.
The article that Todd posted tells the story.
Personally Bodi, I think they just live to get radical.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Do you really want to offer this article as proof? Even the author admits that the gap between CNN and Fox is all but obliterated.
The graph that is offered only estimates for 2004. I would expect that CNN, after a healthy 10 run as the darling of Cable News will be in a solid 2nd place after 2005.
Were I supporter of your thinking, and I read that report, I would be seeking shelter to avoid the huge crash. [/quote]
Yeah, the gap is closing. But it is still 110 million dollars wide!
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Personally Bodi, I think they just live to get radical.[/quote]
who’s “they?”
that sounds kind of bigoted, perhaps racist.
“they”?
That’s like “those people…”.
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Do you really want to offer this article as proof? Even the author admits that the gap between CNN and Fox is all but obliterated.
The graph that is offered only estimates for 2004. I would expect that CNN, after a healthy 10 run as the darling of Cable News will be in a solid 2nd place after 2005.
Were I supporter of your thinking, and I read that report, I would be seeking shelter to avoid the huge crash.
Yeah, the gap is closing. But it is still 110 million dollars wide![/quote]
given the reasons for the gap as stated in your article, I don’t think I’d be trumpeting it. But then again, you’ve got a strange thought process…
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Yeah, the gap is closing. But it is still 110 million dollars wide![/quote]
WHat with CNN controlling two other news channels besides the mothership, that’s not much of a cushion. You can rest on a 110 million gap if you want to, but it’s evaporating, and there’s little T.Turner can do about it short of…well…going conservative.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Personally Bodi, I think they just live to get radical.
who’s “they?”
that sounds kind of bigoted, perhaps racist.
“they”?
That’s like “those people…”.[/quote]
That was a reference to the cinematic classic that is Point Break.
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
That was a reference to the cinematic classic that is Point Break.
[/quote]
classic?
Okay. This much I’ll take your word for, Dude!
What can I say? Never saw it. Don’t watch much movies. I can’t sit still for 2 hours at a time.
Joe,
You’ve outdone yourself. This is your moronic best.
Todd
Well according to this:
"When it comes to revenue, CNN brings in much more than Fox News. In 2004, Kagan Research estimated, CNN would end up bringing in $887 million in overall revenue vs. $539 million for Fox.2
The difference is that CNN supports a much larger infrastructure. Kagan puts its total expenses at $550 million in 2004 and Fox News’s at less than half that, $265 million. CNN is supporting a much larger newsgathering operation, with at least 26 foreign bureaus to Fox’s five, and more reporters as well. CNN is also providing content to more outlets, including Headline News and CNN’s international networks."
And this:
"So Murdoch and Ailes built a different product. To begin with, they understood, or soon came to understand, that they might have great appeal in prime time to the same audience that gravitated during the day to talk radio. To do that, they would have to play, as talk radio does, as a conservative alternative to a mainstream press that was perceived as part of a liberal establishment.
They also had some news personalities who were already well known, such as their Washington bureau chief, Brit Hume, and the former Current Affair host, Bill O’Reilly, and contracts with commentators like Fred Barnes.
Fox News hit on a formula of building shows around anchor personalities rather than a universal news desk, livelier graphics and pacing, heavy focus on a few hot-button topics, particularly Washington and politics, and an appeal to its audience in part through ideological affinity. The marketing slogans “Fair and Balanced” and “We Report, You Decide,” seemed to many to be code for another message: The competition isn’t fair. It’s biased.
In short, Murdoch and Ailes turned necessity - limited resources and a possible conservative reputation - into a virtue. They couldn’t compete against either CNN or MSNBC (backed by NBC) on sheer muscle when it came to gathering, verifying and synthesizing information. They played instead to their own potential strengths, and toward what they perceived as CNN’s potential vulnerabilities - being the establishment network that lived and died by events but had rarely been able to create distinct shows. The strategy may well have been the best one available from a business point of view. Fox developed a cable news network whose appeal was not built mainly on the size of its newsgathering resources.
Now, as Fox has grown, it appears gradually to be building up those resources, but as the expense numbers show, they are still not comparable to CNN’s."
It sounds like ol’ T. Turner should just dismantle his news gathering organization and create shows as opposed to news.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
What? That makes no sense. The funding sources are the market place.
The article that Todd posted tells the story.
[/quote]
Funding sources= adverts, owners, and their investors.
You sure you read the whole article? It was long, maybe you couldn’t sit still to finish it?
Will Fox gain more adverts once they raise their rates? According to you, the article says yes. According to the article, not if Fox continues to have less credibility and a talk radio reputation.
Hey, Bodi: here it is.
Bite me.
How can that be when CNN has lower viewership? A strict comparison of ad rates does not tell the full story, because there are any number of techniques cable channels use to win advertisers, such as offering volume discounts and multi-channel or cross-media deals. The basic story is that Fox News was initially obliged to sell ads at a much lower rate than CNN as it was establishing itself. Even when it matched CNN in viewers, it could not immediately hike its rates to CNN’s level because that might have alienated its existing advertisers.4
Instead, rate increases have been a slow but promising process. Most of Fox News’s gains have come during successive “upfronts” – the period in spring when advertisers commit to purchasing ads for the coming TV season, and the time of year when channels tend to roll out rate increases.5 According to market analysts of cable, as recently as spring 2004 Fox had generally been able to charge only about 75% to 80% of CNN’s ad rates.6 But the gap is reported to have narrowed by the end of 2004 – thanks in part to Fox’s viewership gains toward the end of the campaign season – and Fox News was matching CNN’s ad rates.7
In 2004, Kagan estimated, CNN’s ad revenues would grow by only about $4 million, while Fox’s would grow by $80 million and MSNBC’s by $35 million.
[quote]Bodhisattva wrote:
Funding sources= adverts, owners, and their investors.
You sure you read the whole article? It was long, maybe you couldn’t sit still to finish it?
Will Fox gain more adverts once they raise their rates? According to you, the article says yes. According to the article, not if Fox continues to have less credibility and a talk radio reputation.[/quote]
The funding sources are market driven.
If Fox continues to be tops in the rating, the funding sources will contine to leave CNN, jumping to where the viewers are.
Why is that hard, and why did it require a little snide dig?