'They only care about ratings' is bullshit!!!

[Dawgs]

I'm sorry Jon Stewart, but if CNN and MSNBC only cared about ratings then they would put on left leaning shows that people would watch. Instead, they've decided to try to be another Fox News. The problem is that Fox News watchers(freepers) think CNN and MSNBC are liberal networks.

The only explanation is that these "corporations" are run by right wing supporters of Bush and his administration. They already have tons of money, so higher ratings don't matter. My guess is that they are trying to convert those that occassionly do watch Hardball, Scarborough Country, etc.

Look at Keith Olbermann. His show is one of the highest rated shows on MSNBC. His show is the only one that's brave enough to take on the Bush Administration and right-wing hacks. The other highly rated show is Imus in the morning. No, it's not a left-wing show, but it certainly does not support the Republicans. So, if they really cared about ratings why would they not try to develop a voice that speaks to the left or at least speak the un-biased truth?

I really don't mean to pick on Jon Stewart here, but many agreed with what he said last year when he was on AAR. Does anyone still believe him now?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Yes, For The Most Part. Ratings is still 90% of what drives them, at the

end of the day. I'm sure there is government pressure as well, of course, and that certain stories are squashed because of that, but when it comes to certain programming decisions etc... I still believe that ratings and greed are 90% of the motivation. That's why you saw aruba chick non stop.

[NanceGreggs]

3. Agreed.

Ratings equals how much money a network can charge for its advertizing time; the higher the ratings, the higher the revenues.

To say 'they've already got lots of money' is a bit naive. Revenues have to be generated on a go-forward basis, and no one is going to spend their marketing dollars advertizing on a network that has a dwindling viewership.

Money is everything ...

[tabasco]

8. Don't forget profits for the parent corporations.

The mass media is owned by giant war profiteering corporations.

They will accept loss in the media branch to further the agenda of the parent corp.

Consider the mass media as the propaganda arm of the war profiteers.

It is NOT about ratings. It is about furthering the agenda of the parent corporations. That is where the big money is (our tax dollars). They certainly pay attention to ratings and try to keep them up, but ratings are not the raison d'etre of the mass media.

Ratings have been more important in the past, when the media was more independent, but now, the mission of the mass media is to further the agenda of the war profiteering parent corporations. They want to keep the republicans in power because the sole purpose of the republicans is to help the rich get richer by allowing the corporations to run the country.

They have even taken us to war for corporate profits. And the mass media was there to cheerlead the war.

Sad days for America.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Sorry, But I Disagree. Ratings Is A Huge Driving Factor.

If it wasn't, you wouldn't have wall to wall aruba coverage, wall to wall michael jackson coverage, wall to wall schiavo coverage, wall to wall katrina coverage etc... Unless, of course, you can explain to me how that furthers the agenda of war prfiteering corporations.

[tabasco]

10. It furthers the agenda of the war profiteering corporations...

by keeping the REAL HEADLINES out of the news.

We have mass corruption at the national level, but we hear about runaway brides and missing blondes NONSTOP.

Hope it helps.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Believe it!

The corruption of cable news on the big three cable networks is so complete and so obvious that it absolutely cannot be about the ratings. The coordination of message and the complete lock step sameness of story selection is statistically impossible in my mind. There is something more here than ratings you can be sure. This is especially true if you believe that Gore and Kerry got more votes than Bush. That would mean the very heavily leaning right wing views being represented on most of the hours of broadcast of these stations is in complete disagreement WITH HALF THE COUNTRY.

[NanceGreggs]

7. These networks are owned by corporations ...

... that are making huge profits on government contracts, expecially war-related contracts. That's why they lean so obviously to the right - they're supporting the people who handed them those profitable contracts.

However, GE (as an example) is NOT going to watch those same profits go down the drain to keep a failing network on life-support, just to push the Bush agenda.

TV stations have to generate revenues, at least to the point of being self-sustaining. No shareholder is going to say, "I could have made a half-million bucks in dividends on my GE stock this year -- but no, please take that money and dump it into a money-losing TV network instead."

Money talks - and it only speaks up for those who make sure there's even MORE MONEY to be made.

[Vinnie From Indy]

12. I am a firm believer in the "follow the money" as the tactic to

get to the bottom of most everything and I think maybe in this case that is still true. My contention is that the money lost by consigning your news services to being merely delivery vehicles for psyop campaigns is more than made up for somewhere else or in some other way. I could be wrong and hope I am.

[NanceGreggs]

13. What is the 'some other way'?

Corporations own the networks, and shareholders own those corporations. They didn't invest in GE or Time-Warner stock in order to lose money.

Ratings equal higher advertizing rates, which in turn equal profits that go into the pockets of the investors (shareholders).

CNN is going FAUX-lite because they think THAT'S THE BIGGER VIEWING AUDIENCE.

Yes, people who run TV networks have their own political agenda. But when it comes to choosing between making BUCKETS OF CASH and taking a pay-cut to support a poltical agenda, their politics go right out the nearest window.

When it comes to Big Business, politics speaks loudly -- but NOTHING ON EARTH SPEAKS LOUDER THAN THE SOUND OF BIG BUCKS HITTING THE OL' CASH REGISTER.

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. Maybe we are both right!

It could be that these news orgs are able to make a profit AND become delivery vehicles for psyops and propaganda. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[bkcc]

4. Yes. I still agree with him.

Ratings drive cable news. The biggest ratings on cable news are for the shows on Fox News. (I think O'Reilly is actually #1.) If you look at where the majority of viewers are coming from, you'll see that most of the audience for these "news" shows is right-wing and conservative. CNN is just trying to get a piece of that pie.

Granted, I don't agree with it and I think that it will most likely blow up in their face because of the fact that they are viewed as more liberal. However, the people calling the shots at CNN are probably just like the suits at any company: lazy. They probably think that it's far easier to tap into an audience that is already watching (freepers) than to try for an audience that isn't really established (liberal viewers).

You may say that there are liberal viewers, and you're right. But think about it: Is there one single broadcast media outlet that caters exclusively to left-leaning audiences (other than Air America)?

I think that CNN just doesn't want to be the one to be trailblazers with a new media concept. There's too much risk involved for them.

Which, unfortunately means that we're going to have to suffer through the new, right-wing crap they're going to air. Hopefully it won't be on long.

(Not that I'm even watching.)

[spanone]

5. I've worked in television. It's ALL ABOUT RATINGS.

Faux ratings are higher than CNN and MSNBC. That's why CNN & MSNBC want to emulate Faux.

[Dulcinea]

6. Actually, yes they do.

All networks, whether cable or broadcast, are now owned by big conglomerates & are only accountable to the stockholders. They're expected to turn a profit like any other corporate division.

Good ratings=more ad money=higher stock prices=more $$$ for the fat cats.

[Dawgs]

11. Okay, then...

Why not replace KO with another right-wing hack?

Why not add other hosts like KO to keep the audience that is already watching?

Why continue to get an audience that already is taken by Fox News? I'm not buying that they are lazy, or afraid to go after the liberal market (see last queston)?

How do any of you know that CNN or MSNBC is driven by ratings? You guys have given me reasons why this could be true, but no actual proof. Do you have any?

[thefloyd]

15. Olbermann built Countdown from the ground up

Any attempt by MSNBC to remove the highest rated program would just not look good. MSNBC profit runs red and removing countdown would destroy more 'shareholder value'. Ge sells most assets not considered best of breed or 1 or 2 in an industry

[NYCGirl]

16. Keith gets decent ratings for MSNBC. But to put it in perspective,

Keith gets about 25% of the ratings of O'Reilly. A shame, horrifying but true. And to put it in more perspective, O'Reilly gets about a tenth of the ratings of any network news show.

All the networks are driven by ratings.

[sandnsea]

14. It's about advertising profits

And right now, THEY are doing a better job of spooking advertisers than we are. As long as they intimidate and boycott advertisers, and convince them to pull advertising, the media will put on what they want put on. And that's right wing garbage. So I think that's part of it.

But I also think, because of what Keith himself said, that there is pressure from the higher ups to spread Bush talking points. And I think that's because they really are afraid of terrorist attacks that will make the stock market plummet again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. They only care about $$$$.

They want to sell toothpaste and potato chips. That's what drives their programming. Liberal/Conservative is meaningless to them. What sells is what gets put on.

You want news? Listen to the BBC.

[Odin2005]

19. Conglomerates should be banned from owning the Mass Media

TV and Newspapers have become the propaganda instument of the conglomerates that own them. GE has many defense contracts, so of course they're going to say the Neo-Cons are the best thing since sliced bread. It's like the corporate nightmare in the Sci-fi book Red Mars is coming to pass, how right you were Kim Stanley Robinson.

:cry:

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Also, remember PHIL DONAHUE!

His show was THE HIGHEST RATED SHOW ON MSRNC AND THEY CANCELED IT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO COMPETE WITH THE "MARCH TO WAR" bullshit and Phil's show just didn't fit.