The so-called Business of News

[Calabrio]

We've had a back and forth argument here regarding the hard left-bias in the mainstream news and on networks like CNN and MSNBC.

Foxpaws has been one of the many people who like to dismiss this bias as nothing more than a business decision. This is an argument that makes no sense after it's pointed out that these liberal networks and broadcasts have suffered catastrophic losses in their audience and revenue in recent years. If the news media were not ideological and driven only by market forces, why wouldn't they at least attempt to replicate the enormous success of Fox News or other conservative media voices in recent years?

To they say that Fox News, with it's centrist news coverage and primarily conservative prime time commentators is merely pandering to a niche market. There aren't enough viewers or consumers to support two networks., or something else equally ridiculous.

In the New York Times yesterday:

At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined. The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates that Mr. Ailes does not dispute.
​

In regards to ratings, Fox routinely has higher prime time ratings than all of the CABLE news networks combined.

And in terms of REVENUE, it earns more than all of the cable news networks combines, plus the revenue generated by all of the network newscasts as well.

So, what is the argument now?
How does it make sense, from a business perspective, to continue to produce news with an aggressively left-wing perspective when the "fair and balanced" network earns more than the rest of the industry combined? Particularly for MSNBC- because even they could shave a quarter of the market share from Fox, that'd be a tremendous growth in viewers and revenue.

 

[fossten]

So, what is the argument now?
How does it make sense, from a business perspective, to continue to produce news with an aggressively left-wing perspective when the "fair and balanced" network earns more than the rest of the industry combined? Particularly for MSNBC- because even they could shave a quarter of the market share from Fox, that'd be a tremendous growth in viewers and revenue.

Interestingly enough, this question was asked of Rush on Friday on his show.

The answer is - they (media liberals) are so invested in the advancement of socialism that they cannot help themselves. It is an ideology - not even far short of a religious fervor - which propels them.

 

[Calabrio]

CNN and MSNBC ratings lower than the Cartoon Network.
In the meantime, FOX NEWS ranks #2 behind only USA.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser..._2_msnbc_26_cnn_32_hln_37_in_prime_155302.asp

 

[fossten]

More evidence - Obama goes on Fox to try and sell his healthcare plan. Why not go to the biggest cable network - duh.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal - you aren't comparing apples to apples...

Between the cable networks - yes...

But they are comparing Fox News (the network which runs 24/7 - or 168 hours a week) to 15 (5 days a week - 1 hour a day - 3 networks) hours of network news as far as profits...

Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.
​

You need to compare how Fox's evening news - Bret Baier - revenue compares against broadcast and then use a factor of 90% (market penetration of Fox News).

I think you will find that just like Baier's viewer numbers lag way behind even lowly CBS, the income generated is far less as well.

Heck, last I looked Baier's numbers were in the 2.5 million range, Jon Stewart does about 2.1....

What does that say when a 'phony' news show brings in almost the same numbers as FoxNews' flagship?

 

[fossten]

Heck, last I looked Baier's numbers were in the 2.5 million range, Jon Stewart does about 2.1....

What does that say when a 'phony' news show brings in almost the same numbers as FoxNews' flagship?

You always bring up this silly canard. The point isn't the type of network, it's the growth. You're just too obtuse or disingenuous to see it. LOL at your math and your 'apples to apples.'

19% more viewership is "almost the same." :bowrofl:

And the Daily Show isn't the same kind of show as Bret Baier. Why not compare the Cartoon Network to all the lefty cable 'news' shows? :bowrofl:

 

[Calabrio]

Cal - you aren't comparing apples to apples...

I've compared apples to apples.
I've compared the growth of said apples to each other.
And now I'm comparing their place within the entire entertainment and cable universe.

You're arguments and claims are ridiculous regardless how we frame it and what we are comparing.

You can contort things as you wish.
CNN and MSNBC are failing. There is no sound business decision that justifies their editorial decision to continue pandering the the far left.

What does that say when a 'phony' news show brings in almost the same numbers as FoxNews' flagship?

It means that's a hugely popular 6pm cable news show is more popular than a hugely popular and widely praised entertainment program that is on at 11pm.

What does it say one networks 6pm broadcast is almost EIGHT TIMES higher than the other two networks?
Maybe the Daily Show is stealing all of the morons who would otherwise get their news from MSNBC.

 

[foxpaws]

You always bring up this silly canard. The point isn't the type of network, it's the growth. You're just too obtuse or disingenuous to see it. LOL at your math and your 'apples to apples.'

19% more viewership is "almost the same." :bowrofl:

And the Daily Show isn't the same kind of show as Bret Baier. Why not compare the Cartoon Network to all the lefty cable 'news' shows? :bowrofl:

So, how do you think Baier's numbers stack up to CBS's evening news?

And it is fair to compare Stewart to Baier (and 19 pts isn't all that much, remember there is a 3 to 1 difference in how many people watch Baier compared to Couric)

And I haven't a clue where these people pull their numbers. If you look at total revenue Fox has $1.21 billion, CNN has $1.18 million, and MSNBC has $367.5 million. And that isn't adding what the 3 network news programs bring in a year (about $400 million). So that equals about $2 billion for the 'right' and $1.2 for Fox News.

Yes, Fox New is growing, and standard news is shrinking. But, Fox will see an apex soon, they have almost complete market penetration, and the TV viewing audience is aging and dying and there isn't a new generation that is filling the gap.

Plus, as I have said over and over again - compared to liberal network news - there isn't any comparison... Network news kills in shear numbers over Fox.

One of the networks will go more right soon - who knows who is the most desperate - CBS has the smallest numbers, but doesn't need the news so much right now because they lead the ratings game. Although with Couric's continuing bad numbers, she does seem to be the logical one to get dumped.

 

[foxpaws]

I've compared apples to apples.
I've compared the growth of said apples to each other.
And now I'm comparing their place within the entire entertainment and cable universe.

You're arguments and claims are ridiculous regardless how we frame it and what we are comparing.

You can contort things as you wish.
CNN and MSNBC are failing. There is no sound business decision that justifies their editorial decision to continue pandering the the far left.

It means that's a hugely popular 6pm cable news show is more popular than a hugely popular and widely praised entertainment program that is on at 11pm.

What does it say one networks 6pm broadcast is almost EIGHT TIMES higher than the other two networks?
Maybe the Daily Show is stealing all of the morons who would otherwise get their news from MSNBC.

And Cal, you will never answer why broadcast news is leading Fox News by a factor of 10 to 1... For every ten people who get their news from wonderfully liberal ABC, NBC and CBS only one gets it from Fox...

Miserable numbers...

I don't know about MSNBC - but I know CNN still makes money - and I think it is more profitable than Fox... although the last numbers I can find are 3 years old -

 

[shagdrum]

For every ten people who get their news from wonderfully liberal ABC, NBC and CBS only one gets it from Fox...

You have not cited ONE. SINGLE. FACT. that logically supports that assertion. None of your cherry picked facts discount the possibility that Fox viewers simply switch over to one of the big three for their news broadcast and then back to Fox afterward; your distortions don't discount the possibility of overlap and don't account for it either.

 

[fossten]

And Cal, you will never answer why broadcast news is leading Fox News by a factor of 10 to 1... For every ten people who get their news from wonderfully liberal ABC, NBC and CBS only one gets it from Fox...

Miserable numbers...

It's the same reason why people buy Coke and Pepsi more than any other brand.

 

[fossten]

And it is fair to compare Stewart to Baier (and 19 pts isn't all that much, remember there is a 3 to 1 difference in how many people watch Baier compared to Couric).

Now who's comparing apples to apples AND moving the goalposts?

 

[Calabrio]

And Cal, you will never answer why broadcast news is leading Fox News by a factor of 10 to 1... For every ten people who get their news from wonderfully liberal ABC, NBC and CBS only one gets it from Fox...

You complain about apples to apples comparisons and then immediately fall back to this apples to oranges comparrison, comparing cable news with network news.

Everyone has network programing in their house and there has been a historical traditional and routine where people watch the network broadcast news after the local news.

But there are two important things to look at when comparing this skewed diversion you've brought up.

First, what way are the numbers trending. And second, what's the demographic.

The network newscasts are losing audience at an alarming rate.
And their demographic is old. The majority of the viewers are OVER 54 years old. When you compare the 25-54 demo, the network numbers of each broadcast are about the same as FNCs 6pm broadcast.

The network news broadcasts at 7pm while Fox News is on at 6pm too.

But you do realize that this "point" of your further undermines your broader argument. You're now arguing that MSNBC and CNN are fighting for a 5 way cut of the ideological left audience. That doesn't make any sense either.

I don't know about MSNBC - but I know CNN still makes money - and I think it is more profitable than Fox... although the last numbers I can find are 3 years old -

So you "think" it was so 3 years ago, despite the fact that the FIRST post in this thread cites an article from the New York Times saying this:

Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined. The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates that Mr. Ailes does not dispute.

 

[foxpaws]

You complain about apples to apples comparisons and then immediately fall back to this apples to oranges comparrison, comparing cable news with network news.

Everyone has network programing in their house and there has been a historical traditional and routine where people watch the network broadcast news after the local news.

And FoxNews has about 90% penetration into those households - you are comparing apples to apples if you add broadcast news into the mix.

10 to 1 Cal.

But there are two important things to look at when comparing this skewed diversion you've brought up.

First, what way are the numbers trending. And second, what's the demographic.

The network newscasts are losing audience at an alarming rate.
And their demographic is old. The majority of the viewers are OVER 54 years old. When you compare the 25-54 demo, the network numbers of each broadcast are about the same as FNCs 6pm broadcast.

The network news broadcasts at 7pm while Fox News is on at 6pm too.

Yep, old, and dying and Fox's number will apex... they have continued to grow because they have an alternative format, and the penetration into homes has grown. People aren't going to watch CNN or MSNBC if they have broadcast instead - they are almost alike. However, as Fox started to penetrate more homes, their numbers would most likely rise - they have no comparable on network news. However, now that they have reached almost total penetration, their growth will fall off...

If you are suddenly in 10 million home that you weren't in 3 years before, and you are something totally different than what those 10 million homes have had in the past, your numbers should rise. However if you go into those homes with a product that they basically have had for years (comparing CNN and MSNBC to broadcast news), they aren't going to move from Brian Williams to Campbell Brown, there isn't that much difference. There is a difference between Couric and Baier, that is why Fox grows, their product is different, and they have added new outlets. But, now that they are in almost every home, you will see the numbers level off.

So you "think" it was so 3 years ago, despite the fact that the FIRST post in this thread cites an article from the New York Times saying this:

Ah, I don't know about profits... I do know revenue - that is what I stated before, and those numbers are current - the combo of broadcast evening news hours, msnbc and cnn are at 2.1 billion (revenue), vs fox news at 1.2 billion (revenue).

Your article just says 'believes' yet has no numbers to back them up - no source cal. I have source to show revenue, there isn't any source to track profit that I can find - can you?

And I certainly wouldn't take Ailes' word on this... or lack of word...

 

[Calabrio]

Foxpaws, you can find new ways to restate your assertion over and over but it doesn't make it any more credible. It only makes you more annoying and less credible.

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

We've had a back and forth argument here regarding the hard left-bias in the mainstream news and on networks like CNN and MSNBC.

Foxpaws has been one of the many people who like to dismiss this bias as nothing more than a business decision. This is an argument that makes no sense after it's pointed out that these liberal networks and broadcasts have suffered catastrophic losses in their audience and revenue in recent years. If the news media were not ideological and driven only by market forces, why wouldn't they at least attempt to replicate the enormous success of Fox News or other conservative media voices in recent years?

To they say that Fox News, with it's centrist news coverage and primarily conservative prime time commentators is merely pandering to a niche market. There aren't enough viewers or consumers to support two networks., or something else equally ridiculous.

In the New York Times yesterday:

At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined. The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates that Mr. Ailes does not dispute.
​

In regards to ratings, Fox routinely has higher prime time ratings than all of the CABLE news networks combined.

And in terms of REVENUE, it earns more than all of the cable news networks combines, plus the revenue generated by all of the network newscasts as well.

So, what is the argument now?
How does it make sense, from a business perspective, to continue to produce news with an aggressively left-wing perspective when the "fair and balanced" network earns more than the rest of the industry combined? Particularly for MSNBC- because even they could shave a quarter of the market share from Fox, that'd be a tremendous growth in viewers and revenue.

Some people cannot admit they're wrong no matter what. It could also be like say a BURGER KING. They know that the McDonalds across the street is out doing them but they're happy with what's left.

 

[fossten]

And FoxNews has about 90% penetration into those households - you are comparing apples to apples if you add broadcast news into the mix.

10 to 1 Cal.



Yep, old, and dying and Fox's number will apex... they have continued to grow because they have an alternative format, and the penetration into homes has grown. People aren't going to watch CNN or MSNBC if they have broadcast instead - they are almost alike. However, as Fox started to penetrate more homes, their numbers would most likely rise - they have no comparable on network news. However, now that they have reached almost total penetration, their growth will fall off...

If you are suddenly in 10 million home that you weren't in 3 years before, and you are something totally different than what those 10 million homes have had in the past, your numbers should rise. However if you go into those homes with a product that they basically have had for years (comparing CNN and MSNBC to broadcast news), they aren't going to move from Brian Williams to Campbell Brown, there isn't that much difference. There is a difference between Couric and Baier, that is why Fox grows, their product is different, and they have added new outlets. But, now that they are in almost every home, you will see the numbers level off.


Ah, I don't know about profits... I do know revenue - that is what I stated before, and those numbers are current - the combo of broadcast evening news hours, msnbc and cnn are at 2.1 billion (revenue), vs fox news at 1.2 billion (revenue).

Your article just says 'believes' yet has no numbers to back them up - no source cal. I have source to show revenue, there isn't any source to track profit that I can find - can you?

And I certainly wouldn't take Ailes' word on this... or lack of word...

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

 

[Calabrio]

Some people cannot admit they're wrong no matter what. It could also be like say a BURGER KING. They know that the McDonalds across the street is out doing them but they're happy with what's left.

No, it's not like that. I don't want to push your analogy any further, but BK isn't ideological.

We need to stop equating politics to sports or other trivial competitions. The radical left in this country has vividly demonstrated that they are engaged in a no-holds-barred battle to the death for the soul of this country.

It's not like BK. It's not like the Yankees and the Red Sox. It's not like any of that. It's a battle for your soul.

 

[foxpaws]

Foxpaws, you can find new ways to restate your assertion over and over but it doesn't make it any more credible. It only makes you more annoying and less credible.

And Cal - since you obviously can't find real numbers to support the 'belief' that fox is more profitable, have no good answer to why Fox News can barely bring in 10% of broadcast news numbers (Baier's scheduling is bad - come on - he can't even pull broadcast numbers when he isn't against broadcast - just local news - much easier competition), haven't been able to comprehend that Fox News will max out shortly on growth, because they aren't growing their penetration into homes any longer (their biggest reason for growth) and you say I am not credible?

I can give you another reason for not believing the 'fox hype'... let's look at the media that will soon lead both broadcast and cable news... online... here CNN and MSNBC rock - and Fox falls behind... Fox has almost a 2 share... CNN and MSNBC account for 6.5 share - 3x Fox's numbers (but Yahoo News wins at a 7 share...)

 

[Calabrio]

And Cal - since you obviously can't find real numbers to support the 'belief' that fox is more profitable

Let me repeat this again. This is from the NEW YORK TIMES:

Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined. The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates that Mr. Ailes does not dispute.

have no good answer to why Fox News can barely bring in 10% of broadcast news numbers

...yet the 6pm broadcast on FOX is more the FIVE TIMES the size of the of the other cable broadcasts at the same time. The fact is, you're just trying to change the subject here to something, anything, rather than the fact you're trying to defend an indefensible position.

The ideological position taken by MSNBC and CNN is NOT a profitable business decision. If one of those networks were able to steal 30% of the Fox audience, they'd have higher ratings than they do now.

haven't been able to comprehend that Fox News will max out shortly on growth, because they aren't growing their penetration into homes any longer (their biggest reason for growth) and you say I am not credible?

So they are going to max out with 5x the ratings of their competition?
Do you have an explanation for why the other two networks are LOSING ratings? Perhaps the continued rapid growth at Fox News is also due to gaining some of that audience that is fleeing MSNBC and CNN?

can give you another reason for not believing the 'fox hype'...

I'm sure you can give me lots of reasons- their all just going to be dishonest rhetoric, like most of what you have to say....

let's look at the media that will soon lead both broadcast and cable news...

I'm not debating the websites...
that's changing the subject.
But I guess it was worth your trying.

 

[foxpaws]

Let me repeat this again. This is from the NEW YORK TIMES:

Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined. The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates that Mr. Ailes does not dispute.

"Believed" to make more money - "700 million operating profit" - there isn't any 'number' source that backs those statements. I haven't seen any breakdown on NWS's reports that breaks out operating profit for FoxNews...

...yet the 6pm broadcast on FOX is more the FIVE TIMES the size of the of the other cable broadcasts at the same time. The fact is, you're just trying to change the subject here to something, anything, rather than the fact you're trying to defend an indefensible position.

The ideological position taken by MSNBC and CNN is NOT a profitable business decision. If one of those networks were able to steal 30% of the Fox audience, they'd have higher ratings than they do now.

Can you out fox Fox at this point - I still think someone will try to compete more closely - CNN is edging that way. MSNBC is starting to rely on other media - TV is just going to be a sideline for them soon, their money will be made online or push through.

Do you have the profit/loss numbers on FoxNews, CNN or MSNBC Cal - compared to expenses? FoxNews appears to be a far more expensive undertaking. What is the rate of return on these stations? I don't know - I have looked but it isn't easy to find, if it is available at all.

So they are going to max out with 5x the ratings of their competition?
Do you have an explanation for why the other two networks are LOSING ratings? Perhaps the continued rapid growth at Fox News is also due to gaining some of that audience that is fleeing MSNBC and CNN?

Yep - MSNBC and CNN are to some extent losing ratings because of the internet. Their audience is grabbing info quickly off of their internet sites. Their audience is probably younger, more mobile, than the older demo of Fox - who is still using TV for their news. I work with a lot of people in their late teens and 20s - nobody watches the news on TV in that demo. It is why the internet numbers are so important here.

I'm not debating the websites...
that's changing the subject.
But I guess it was worth your trying.

Nope - internet is important when looking at numbers - who is viewing what, where, traffic counts.

Internet means a lot in the important 18-35 demo - and CNN and MSNBC is winning that contest. Advertising money follows 18-35...

 

[Calabrio]

"Believed" to make more money - "700 million operating profit" - there isn't any 'number' source that backs those statements. I haven't seen any breakdown on NWS's reports that breaks out operating profit for FoxNews...

So your going to use your lack of knowledge or information as an argument to dismiss the analyst claims in the NY Times?

The NY Times is citing analysts who estimate the profits to be $700M, and more importantly more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.

Can you out fox Fox at this point -

By making an effort at balanced reporting and respecting "conservative" opinions? I think so.

I still think someone will try to compete more closely - CNN is edging that way.

This is an acknowledgment that your argument has been flawed all along.

MSNBC is starting to rely on other media - TV is just going to be a sideline for them soon, their money will be made online or push through.

So you're saying that they are doing so poorly on TV, they'll have to find other ways to generate revenue. Perhaps they could become government funded next.

Do you have the profit/loss numbers on FoxNews, CNN or MSNBC Cal - compared to expenses? FoxNews appears to be a far more expensive undertaking. What is the rate of return on these stations? I don't know - I have looked but it isn't easy to find, if it is available at all.

Then get to work.
Because all you've brought to this discussion has been warped, faulty logic and excuses. Bring some numbers to the table that are relevant to the discussion.

Yep - MSNBC and CNN are to some extent losing ratings because of the internet.

..and to some extent I'm sure their losing some viewers because it's a sunny day. YOU ARE MAKING EXCUSES.

Their audience is grabbing info quickly off of their internet sites. Their audience is probably younger, more mobile, than the older demo of Fox - who is still using TV for their news. I work with a lot of people in their late teens and 20s - nobody watches the news on TV in that demo. It is why the internet numbers are so important here.

Are you now focusing on JUST the national news broadcast?
And you're using that word "probably" in this thread. When you do that, it usually means that you're probably completely full of crap and making it up.

Nope - internet is important when looking at numbers - who is viewing what, where, traffic counts.

And when we have a discussion about web traffic, it will be relevant.
Until then... you're probably grasping at straws and trying to change the subject.
Not tonight.

 

[foxpaws]

So your going to use your lack of knowledge or information as an argument to dismiss the analyst claims in the NY Times?

The NY Times is citing analysts who estimate the profits to be $700M, and more importantly more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.

Where is the source Cal - that is all I am asking - I have looked for it - because I think that 700m operating profit seems really off the mark.

By making an effort at balanced reporting and respecting "conservative" opinions? I think so.

So, if CNN pulls 30% of Fox's audience it will be worth it - maybe. That is where the number crunching comes in.

So you're saying that they are doing so poorly on TV, they'll have to find other ways to generate revenue. Perhaps they could become government funded next.

I am saying that MSNBC might not care - if their internet number is big enough, then TV is just a secondary media outlet for them. Eventually TV isn't going to be the media outlet that matters Cal. And that 'eventuality' is happening pretty quickly.

Then get to work.
Because all you've brought to this discussion has been warped, faulty logic and excuses. Bring some numbers to the table that are relevant to the discussion.

I asked first Cal - I would really like to see real numbers on Fox - I asked earlier... Murdock isn't exactly open on this subject.

..and to some extent I'm sure their losing some viewers because it's a sunny day. YOU ARE MAKING EXCUSES.

Nope - if you are hoping to reach 18-35 you are looking at the internet. I am sure CNN and MSNBC are really happy they are succeeding there. Because soon that is what is going to matter more.

And when we have a discussion about web traffic, it will be relevant.
Until then... you're probably grasping at straws and trying to change the subject.
Not tonight.

We are talking news - and the news is delivered in two media now Cal - sorry - internet is as viable a delivery system as TV and soon will be far more important. It is still the news - just the way you get it is changing.

Because of age breakdown, you now look at it this way:

Large TV viewership, smaller internet viewership
vs
Small TV viewership, larger internet viewership.

Old
vs
young

Dying
vs
emerging

Fox
vs
MSNBC/CNN

 

[Calabrio]

So, to summarize, you have nothing else to contribute to the conversation, you're argument is completely bankrupt, but rather than admit it, you'll just try to muddy the waters here with double speak, ambiguity, and ridiculous subject changes like "the future of the internet."

No thanks.

 

[fossten]

Where is the source Cal - that is all I am asking - I have looked for it - because I think that 700m operating profit seems really off the mark.

Based on what? Your doddering woman's intuition?

Talk about moving the goalposts...