CNN: Living Proof That Market Dominance Does Not Necessarily Last

People under 30 probably have no direct memory of it, but at one point, CNN equaled news.  And if you did not believe that, Darth Vader told you so.  This week, however, layoffs and "managerial changes" are convulsing the network.

When movies wanted to include realistic news references in the early 1990s, they cited CNN.  They were everywhere and showed everything.  Why wait for Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw's updates at the top of the hour or their full broadcast at 6:30?  You could see it now on CNN.

The era of CNN's ownership of modern news came only a little over a decade after the retirement of CBS' Walter Cronkite.  It also came in most major newspapers' most profitable years.

What happened?

Part of the problem emerged in the 1990s when a personal friend of President Bill Clinton's was chosen to lead CNN.  Regardless of the resulting coverage, this created at least the perception, if not the outcome, of a conflict of interest. 

A real or perceived liberal bias opened the market for competition.  This included the conservative leaning Fox News and (at the time) the even more conservative MSNBC.

Does anyone remember when MSNBC featured Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson?

Viewers latched onto Fox News, which eventually became the leading cable television news outlet.  Others turned away from television (and tangible newspapers) altogether and started using the internet as a primary news source.

CNN struggled to adapt while trying to maintain their image as the "real" news source.  A 2012 Pew survey praised CNN for keeping 55 percent of its broadcast focused on news (as opposed to 45 percent for Fox News and less than 10 percent for MSNBC.) 

Recent hires should have helped.  Jake Tapper headlines one of CNN's premiere spots.  He is one of the few media figures respected from all ideological points of view.

Problems, however, continued. Reports of extravagant overspending in times of declining ratings dog the news of layoffs.  And these layoffs and early retirements affect many of CNN's most senior, most experienced, and core personnel.

Whatever the problems are, clearly CNN has still not discovered the solution to its viewership and profitability woes in this competitive media age.  The network built its reputation and market dominance in an era of no competition. Only figuring out a way to regain competitive advantage can bring it back towards what it once was.

Speaking Of . . .

The issue of money keeps dogging Hillary Clinton and she seems unwilling to do much to escape the increased scrutiny from all sides.

This week, the Washington Free Beacon reported that Clinton received $275,000 for a one hour speech and very limited photo session at the University of Buffalo.

Although the media focuses on the money paid out, the real story may be tax law problems for non profit educational institutions.  Most colleges and universities fall under the 501 (c) 3 category protecting them from paying taxes.  That status can be jeopardized by overt support of a political party or a political candidate.  Under Obama, the Internal Revenue Service has imposed significant burdens on conservative institutions applying for this coveted status.  Political activity is often cited as a reason.

By not officially announcing herself as a candidate (although she has made frequent and coy allusions to it), Clinton has given cover to colleges and universities willing to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to be graced with her presence.  Some would say purchase influence.

The Free Beacon report contained criticism from MSNBC's Chuck Todd that Clinton earned "presidential" level payments.  In 2011, however, the Daily Beast covered criticism of former President George W. Bush's speaking fees, which typically run between $100,000 and $150,000.

Almost every time, Bush collected six figure payments from private sector institutions.  The University of Buffalo is a public school.

Others who achieved Clinton's highest office, secretary of state, do not make as much for appearances.  Condoleeza Rice was set to collect $35,000 from Rutgers before bowing out in the face of protests.  This only outpaced reality star Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi by $3,000.

Clinton's pay days seem to have backfired.  The MSNBC panel discussed how quickly Clinton's approval ratings fell after the sustained drip of money stories commenced.  Most Americans do not begrudge money honestly made, but few want to hear about rich people crying poverty.  Nor does it look good when public universities, in a time of outrageous tuition, pay out $275,000 for anyone to show up for an hour.

Disagree With Democrats? Keep It to Yourself . . .Or Else

Since the election of Obama, liberals have gone after their political dissenters.  First came White House attempts, fended off by the media, to declare Fox News a non news outlet, banishing them from the press corps. Then came years of the left's near fetish level fascination with "sedition."  Tea Parties, Republicans, libertarians, nearly everyone associated with opposing this president gets tarred with the word. "Sedition" is the idea that speech that disrupts government functions should be criminal.  Twice in American history have sedition laws been passed, both during wars with Great Powers.

The scandal over improper IRS harassment of groups opposed to the current federal government will not subside, despite the administration's best efforts.

Worst of all, last fall, a Washington Times  reporter uncovering problems with the air marshal service had her research materials illegally seized by the Maryland State Police and turned over to the Department of Homeland Security.

Last week brought more stories of liberals and left wing attempts to chill speech or silence opponents.

Public outcry forced the Federal Communications Commission to back off of a plan to send monitors into broadcast and print media newsrooms to ask "invasive" questions about story selection and coverage.  The FCC is mandated to regularly submit reports about potential barriers to small operators and entrepreneurship.  Its questionnaire included many questions about journalism decisions, which could have a chilling effect on issue coverage. Many experts agree this violates the First Amendment, at least in spirit.

And finally on the state level, as West Virginia Metro News's Hoppy Kercheval puts it, some Democrats "can't stand a feisty Republican."  West Virginia's elected Republican attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, faces the possible stripping of his constitutionally mandated powers. Like others, his "crime" seems to be strenuous opposition to the efforts and plans of the Obama Administration.  Morrisey has been an outspoken opponent of infringements on the Second Amendment and EPA attacks on coal and power.

House Republicans and others noted that the state constitution and recent case law forbid the state legislature from doing precisely what House Democrats are trying.

The pattern is pretty clear.  Speak out against Obama, oppose his administration's plans, and his allies try to bring the power of government down against you, usually illegally.  Why can't America have bipartisan discussions and compromises?  Partly because of this dynamic.

Liberals, Conservatives Wary of Time Warner and Comcast Merger

What could bring conservatives and liberal-leftists to, if not arm in arm cooperation, at least shouting distance agreement?  The impending merger between Time Warner and Comcast, the cable company currently ruling the NBC empire of networks.

Media Research Center's Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog site, sounded the tocsin this week.  It warned readers that the combination of two cable giants could bring competitive benefit to Comcast's prize NBC products.  These would wield "even more influence."

Senator Al Franken, a former media figure in the employee of NBC during his years on Saturday Night Live, wrote to the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission. Franken related his "serious reservations" about the merger.  He went on to say " Unfortunately, a handful of cable companies dominate the market, leaving customers with little choice but to pay high bills for often unsatisfactory service."

Gizmodo related larger concerns.  With cable dwindling, the size of the new conglomerate could control broadband access, since internet relies on the same wiring to get into the house.  In the short term, a near monopoly in the cable market (Gizmodo compared it to Coca Cola buying Pepsi-Cola) could enforce bad deals on not only cable channels like The Weather Channel, but also the major networks.  Fearing loss of market when television viewership as a whole is down, networks and channels could possibly be bent to the will of the new company much more easily.

Or this could be another case of Time Warner hitching itself to a fading star.

Back in what seems like a generation ago, there was once a company called AOL Time Warner.  Time Warner endeavored to combine with the most prominent name in internet providers, raising fears of media monopoly.  No one could speculate the impact of a single company across a spectrum of media.  Certainly almost no one guessed that AOL was on the verge not of omnipotence, but irrelevance. 

History may not repeat itself exactly in this case.  But the history of monopolies in a free market shows a pattern.  Monopolies, unless backed by government favor or power as in the example of the 1770s British East India company, are inherently unstable.  They act sluggishly, only innovate slowly, and usually either shrink or break apart due to pressures from competition.  

Monopolies rely on what worked in the past while ignoring the future.  IBM was fated to lose technological dominance the day it ignored Bill Gates.  Comcast's dominance of cable may be akin to a hypothetical carriage monopoly in 1900.  They may win today and be a footnote tomorrow.  

Advances in technology are the biggest enemy of monopoly and market dominance.  Giant companies fear the change that smaller companies embrace and drive. The many technological alternatives to cable render fears of a monopoly moot.  AT&T once dominated the long distance telephone market.  Had Congress not broken AT&T up in the 1980s, the internet and cell phones would have undermined their market control. Time Warner itself struggles to figure out how to make sure profits on some of its traditional holdings.  

After all, in the 21st century, Bleacher Report is worth more than the Washington Post.  It's a new day.

Conservatives worry about the possible outsized influence on media and politics of their MSNBC nemesis.  Liberals and leftists fear the old bogeyman of monopoly, this time in media form.  At the end of the day, even if this merger goes through, history shows that there will be sound and fury.  But market mechanics remain.  Consumers will demand to be satisfied, or they will turn to satellite television, the internet, or some other source even more than they do now.

In the cable TV market, the cable companies do not rule the consumer.  Increasingly, they will face the fact that they must serve the market or disappear.

Unfit For Office

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/17/sen_rockefeller_fcc_should_take_fox_news_msnbc_off_airwaves.html

It's not often that I say this, even about an extreme leftist. The voters pick who they want and they have the responsibility to live with their choice. However, I doubt that the voters of West Virginia understood that a part of Senator Rockefeller wants to wish away the First Amendment and get rid of FOX News and MSNBC.

Rockefeller comes from a very patrician family. That means that he descends from forefathers who felt that they had the right and the responsibility to exercise power. In Europe, they would carry the title of "Duke" or "Prince" in front of their last names. Here in America, they just try to influence as much as possible. By and large, most politically active members of the Rockefeller family have expressed little support for the dignity of the common man as an individual, although they express much love for "the people" as a group.

I'll address this next part to the Senator. "Faith" in government comes when government is responsive to the people and respects their rights to innocent life, liberty, and pursuit of and retention of, property. When the government sticks to its basic roles and functions, people will have more faith. However we are not meant to have too much faith. We need to be skeptical. Government should be, but rarely is, our obedient servant and we must keep a watchful eye upon it. Government is run by humans who are not always saints. They at times will lie, steal, cheat, and work hard to keep their power. Having faith does not mean that we always extend complete trust.

The fact is that FOX and MSNBC serve a purpose. They are part of that watchful eye on the government and they do not fail to report on the shortcomings of their political opponents. This has the result of making each party and ideological group more responsive because they know that eyes are on them all of the time.

FOX and MSNBC are also symbols of a free society in action. In our country, when it comes to politics, we exchange heated words instead of bullets and bombs. They are a sign of a healthy political society because no one is afraid to speak their mind and no one is shooting at each other. We should embrace the political society that spawns these organizations instead of bashing it.

When it comes down to it, the Bill of Rights is paramount. When Senator Rockefeller officially and publicly expresses the wistful desire to destroy the natural rights of both conservatives and leftists to speak freely, he has made himself unfit to serve.

MSNBC Bashes Obama's Oil Well Blowout Speech

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html

The above link takes you to Real Clear Politics. They carry a transcript of some of the remarks made by MSNBC's ultra left wing political team after Obama's oil well blowout speech last night. Their tone is shocking compared to the gushing they did in 2008, ignoring the conservative accusations that an inexperienced Obama may be in over his head.

Of course they do it in a somewhat disturbing fashion. I do not like the idea of executive command as a model. Leadership, guidance, organization, innovation, these would help. Command is too dictatorial a word for me. Unless the situation involves war, I do not want a president thinking in terms of command.

This situation would try any president. Catastrophes either make or break those who aspire to be called leaders because there is so little margin for error. From the early day that Obama's Administration refused help from the Netherlands to his party with Paul McCartney, the president and his staff seem to have no clue that this is something beyond a political problem. It's actually the opposite of the Bush/Katrina problem. Bush was working behind the scenes to prevent economic disaster and deferring, as he should have, to the state governor. He and his people ignored the political issues created by the perceived lack of engagement. Obama's people have reacted as if this was entirely a political issue, hoping it would blow over, then reacting belatedly by putting on some silly tough guy act.

In any case, it's clear that temporarily at least he has lost the Left.

NBC does not want to hear any critisism of their bias coverage

Keeping It In Perspective

MSNBC exploded into my living room last night to announce that Election 2008 will be the most critical in our history. It then "treated" me to shots of Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, and other screaming meemies it plans to use to cover this year's cycle. This represents one of those rare events that outhypes the Super Bowl.

Honestly the news has completely lost its credibility. When Dan Rather uses very questionable evidence to attack a president and elections are treated like ballgames, you can see that the media creates stories as much as reports them. The hype machine for this year's election started in 2006 and has resulted in frenzied coverage of every potential aspect, right down to how Chelsea Clinton responds to reporters.

Actually this election may be one of the less eventful or important in terms of the presidency compared to others in our nation's history. The election of 1800 was important because we transferred power from one party to another peacefully for the first time. In 1828 white men without property voted in many states for the first time, opening a new era in national politics complete with slogans and mudslinging. Both of Lincoln's elections addressed major national questions, in 1864 quite possibly whether the Union would win the Civil War or allow the Confederacy to live. Of course FDR's first election in 1932 brought on the New Deal and our world would look very different if the results of 1980 had been anything other than a Reagan victory.

This election so far has sputtered and puttered along. No candidate really has grabbed the imagination of their party while the presumed nominees from about this time last year have hit some obstacles. America's mayor has great leadership qualities, but what are his core beliefs and how will they affect his decisions? The former first lady right now seems to frighten some liberals almost as much as conservatives, although despite Iowa, she is a likely shoe in as the Democratic nominee. Obama will give her a scare early, as McCain did Bush in 2000. However she has been preparing this for too long.

That being said, this election does not seem to feature great national questions. Iraq is winding down towards a positive conclusion although the Middle East still has severe problems. Suddenly Democratic nominees want to debate the economy again. The Republicans have a pretty good track record there, despite the media attempts to paint it otherwise. Bush's administration has secured America from attack for almost seven years now, enabling the population at large to put the homeland security issue on the backburner. In other words, what are the great issues of this cycle? They are important, but they do not compare to the nation torn in two or crippling economic depressions.

Don't get me wrong, that does not mean that this election is not important. There are many reasons to be concerned about who will run the country for the next several years. However, overhyping anything produces mental callouses on the intended audience. How can presidential candidates seriously debate important issues when the media overhyping has caused too many to tune out? Then the media will wring its hands and wonder why so many voters ignore the elections altogether.