[Speed Gibson,
Sunday September 26, 2004 at 10:38am]
Do We Need Network News?
Do we really need network news, as in ABC, CBS, and NBC? The recent debacle at CBS prompts such a question in the face of new media.
When the big three was all there was, the need was the there and by and large they did a good job. One reason no doubt was that at the designated news periods around 6 pm, all stations were airing news, so quality was king. There were no Friends or Simpsons reruns to compete with.
Today, there is CNN and Fox News. There is no significant national or world event that they do not cover. There are also Reuters and the Associated Press, for what their worth these days.
So put yourself in charge of your local station's 10 pm news, say, Channel 4. Do you really need CBS? Again, CNN has whatever you need at the national or international level, and since WCCO is liberal like CNN, it's a good fit. Other stations might use Fox News, and if the big three drop out or spin off their news organizations, other alternatives will likely exist.
Now imagine you're the head of CBS. Your entertainment and sports divisions pay all the bills, and the network concept is still very much valid in these areas. The news division, however, generally makes no money. It no longer adds luster to the brand. The network metaphor itself no longer holds, supplanted by satellites and cable. Isn't the correct business decision to either fold or more likely, spin them off as a new cable service? Your top line suffers a little, but your bottom line improves a little.
There are already signs that entertainment is dominating the news. Look at the limited coverage of the political conventions, press conferences, and certain other events that used be aired without exception. They far get more money airing Everybody Loves Raymond than a night of speeches, however entertaining.
So again, I ask; does ABC, CBS, or NBC really need ABC, CBS, or NBC News? I say no. It's old media that can't compete with tiny slots against the 24 hour CNN, Fox News, and C-Span.
When the big three was all there was, the need was the there and by and large they did a good job. One reason no doubt was that at the designated news periods around 6 pm, all stations were airing news, so quality was king. There were no Friends or Simpsons reruns to compete with.
Today, there is CNN and Fox News. There is no significant national or world event that they do not cover. There are also Reuters and the Associated Press, for what their worth these days.
So put yourself in charge of your local station's 10 pm news, say, Channel 4. Do you really need CBS? Again, CNN has whatever you need at the national or international level, and since WCCO is liberal like CNN, it's a good fit. Other stations might use Fox News, and if the big three drop out or spin off their news organizations, other alternatives will likely exist.
Now imagine you're the head of CBS. Your entertainment and sports divisions pay all the bills, and the network concept is still very much valid in these areas. The news division, however, generally makes no money. It no longer adds luster to the brand. The network metaphor itself no longer holds, supplanted by satellites and cable. Isn't the correct business decision to either fold or more likely, spin them off as a new cable service? Your top line suffers a little, but your bottom line improves a little.
There are already signs that entertainment is dominating the news. Look at the limited coverage of the political conventions, press conferences, and certain other events that used be aired without exception. They far get more money airing Everybody Loves Raymond than a night of speeches, however entertaining.
So again, I ask; does ABC, CBS, or NBC really need ABC, CBS, or NBC News? I say no. It's old media that can't compete with tiny slots against the 24 hour CNN, Fox News, and C-Span.