Advertising as Payola: Who really owns CNN?

[RandiFan1290]

I have heard Randi talk about this for a few years now and I think everyone should add this to their list of what is wrong with our media.
These corporations are buying the content. They do not give a damn if we write them angry emails about the bias of Wolf or Tweety. They are doing the bidding of their contributors.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/19/222230/01

Advertising as Payola: Who really owns CNN?
by HollywoodOz
Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 08:22:30 PM PDT

So I'm watching CNN today, taking it easy, putting my feet up, and as Anderson Vanderbilt-Cooper does his best to fulfill his new News-Rockstar persona by clambering over rusted out New Orleans cars and digging crusty beads out of rubble, something struck me... actually, it's struck me a few times over recent months, but it struck harder today.

Every ad break features ads for companies that make no products I can buy.

And I'm not just talking a few of them, I'm talking loads. Tons. Something close to a majority, even.

Let's roll through a few examples:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. Follow the money, as always. Very enlightening. nt.

[boobooday]

2. "We don't make the things you buy"

"We make them more toxic."

[Johnny Noshoes]

3. ah now

THAT'S truth in advertising.

"We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true. But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube. You eat like the tube. You even think like the tube. In God's name, you people are the real thing, WE are the illusion." Howard Beale

[boobooday]

4. WE ARE THE REAL THING!

I just watched that for the first time a couple of months ago.

Indeed, we are the real thing. :-)

[BlueEyedSon]

5. This is the most important idea/meme I have seen this year.

Corporations are throwing around big money buying ad time NOT TO SELL PRODUCTS, but primarily to CONTROL CONTENT.

I read most of the comments on the piece, and many recommend boycotting CNN (i.e. don't watch it). Aside from the obvious "you're probably not a Nielson household" argument, if the payola hypothesis is correct a boycott would be IRRELEVANT, in terms of the normal buying-ad-time-to-sell-units-of- product-to-consumers/viewers model....

[malaise]

10. Very enlightening indeed

makes a lot of sense. K & R

[Boojatta]

11. "not to sell products, but primarily to control content"

"Corporations are throwing around big money buying ad time NOT TO SELL PRODUCTS, but primarily to CONTROL CONTENT."

Can you give one confirmed case of that? By "control content" do you mean have a veto power or do you mean actually set the agenda of topics covered and approach to covering them?

When you say "corporations", which people are you talking about? Are you talking about shareholders? Are you talking about boards of directors? Are you talking about managers appointed by boards of directors?

Also, do you mean "to sell products, but not primarily to sell products" or do you actually mean "not to sell products"?

[annabanana]

12. ummmm...

Can YOU prove they're NOT?

[BlueEyedSon]

13. Read the piece, that was the point of it. If you have a problem, it's not

with me.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Start Here...

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

This is a great source of who owns what...then follow the money.

Problem is the commercials you see on your cable don't all come from one place. Some are CNN's, others are from your local cable company or satellite operator and others come from a third party reseller. The networks have a nice racket going as they not only make money from selling their own advertising, but also get fees from cable and satellite operators...that's why the numbers mean so much. The more homes, the more money. It doesn't mean who buys, just who watches.

I've posted several times on how people can affect local talk radio...and I've seen it done very well in recent days...but television is another animal. The three cable outlets are owned by large corporate entitites that aren't afraid to use their broadcast outlets for political and financial advantage.

[RandiFan1290]

9. That is a great link.

Thanks :)

[natrat]

7. television blows because you cant choose which chanels to subscribe

to. I really want no part of cnn or any other cable news but i pay my 75 smackers a month for it.For the most part it is sickening, i actually want to read paperbacks now. Cable companies will probably will never go for the ala carte option, what a shame.

[Jawja]

8. Yes!

We should be allowed to subscribe to individual channels in a CUSTOM package. I want my SciFi and Bravo and Weather, etc., but I don't want cable news. We should have that right.

[Boojatta]

14. Re advertising to get investors to consider buying shares

ConocoPhillips up 75% since Nov 04
Dow Chmical same as Nov 04
Boeing Air up 40% since Nov 04
Lockheed Martin up 10% since Nov 04
British Petroleum up 10% since Nov 04

Considering gas prices are nearly double what they were a year ago, and we're engaged in TWO wars, these share prices are pretty dire, which I would think would disprove the 'advertising as a share price motivator' theory.

Why compare the current share prices to the share prices in November 2004? Did the companies start advertising in November 2004 and is it known that the share prices were influenced by nothing but the advertising?

If we consider Ross Perot then we won't be choosing two arbitrary dates. We will choose the actual percentage of the vote that he received on two occasions. If the percentage went down, then does that disprove the 'campaigning as voter motivator' theory?