Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[CMRivdogs]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Neither are major news operations.

Fox News is not major? Someone please inform the Murdoch's 

Newsmax is in 48 markets, reaches about 40 million people. Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Atlanta are not major?

Edited Wednesday at 08:04 PM by CMRivdogs

[CMRivdogs]

And by the way Sinclair owns 185 TV stations in 86 markets. While they do carry the so called "major" news networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) their owner and local bend is conservative. Why aren't their licenses being challenged or questioned? 

[chasfh]

44 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Fox News is not major? Someone please inform the Murdoch's 

Newsmax is in 48 markets, reaches about 40 million people. Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Atlanta are not major?

Neither of them are actual news operations, especially Newsmax. They are opinion and entertainment vehicles.

EDIT: Also, just wondering, how is Newsmax local to Philadelphia, San Francisco, et al? How does that work?

Edited Wednesday at 08:45 PM by chasfh

[CMRivdogs]

Just now, chasfh said:

Neither of them are actual news operations, especially Newsmax. They are opinion and entertainment vehicles.

I agree, but they advertise themselves as "news" providers, much like most "news" radio stations that primarily carry talk show. 

Maybe I should file suits against these folks. 

Need to start a go fund me first

[mtutiger]

6 hours ago, chasfh said:

CBS is going to become the Newsweek.com of major news operations.

Unironically yes 

[chasfh]

FWIW:

Too Much TV Exclusive: Reports Of 'Late Show's' $40 Million Annual Loss Are 'Bull****'

 

I am shocked to discover that unnamed network sources might be trying to spin a story.

Rick Ellis Jul 31

 

IS 'THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT' REALLY LOSING $40 MILLION A YEAR? 

In the days that followed the cancellation of the CBS late night talker The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, sources that appear to be at CBS and its parent Paramount Global fed a steady stream of background quotes to eager industry reporters. "This cancellation has nothing to do with politics." "It's a reflection of the weakened state of late night television." "And oh, by the way, the show was losing $40 million a year."

The economics of late night television have always been a bit of a black box, so in the absence of any other data, that $40 million figure has become the accepted conventional wisdom in most of the reporting surrounding the cancellation. So much so that when The Financial Times wrote about David Ellison and the turmoil at CBS today, their piece quoted the $40 million figure, attributing it to "media reports."

But how accurate is that number? 

It's a bit difficult to know for sure. But after talking to several people familiar with the economics of the show (both current and former employees), here is an overall look. The Late Show's annual budget appears to be in the $90-$100 million range. And while the outside estimates of the show's ad revenue are all over the map, most estimates show the revenue dropping by about half over the past six years. Which likely means a substantial annual deficit over the past couple of years.

But is the reported $40 million a year deficit an accurate reflection of the revenue problem? Sources I've spoken with insist the number is wildly inflated, with two sources who have direct knowledge of the show's economics telling me the number for the upcoming season is likely to be closer to the range of $25-$28 million. Which is a lot of money, but it is also not $40 million a year.

One source suggested that the $40 million figure included a lot of extraneous expenses, including likely pay increases for staff and for Colbert if the show continued past next year. The source also suspected the figure included some shifting of expenses in a way designed to maximize the short-term loss, although "No one really knows for sure," I was told. "I don't know anyone I've talked to who can figure out where that $40 million number came from. So it's impossible to know how accurate it is. If you ask me, it's bull****."

One of things I've heard from more than one person is that the idea of cancelling a show because it's losing $40 million a year and then leaving it on the air until May doesn't make a lot of sense. "I've read some stories that CBS executives are leaving the show on the air in order to give us a 'proper send-off.' I'm sorry, but I've worked for this company long enough to know that some executives might be sentimental about shows. But they're not tens of millions in more losses sentimental."

Another pushback I've heard from insiders was the idea that The Late Show was less digitally savvy than competing late night talkers, leading to less digital ad revenue. The sources agree that was true, but laid much of the blame on the network and to a lesser extent on Colbert himself. "I know for a fact that we tried to get the green light for more digital content and we were told the network 'didn't think that played to our strength.' I also don't think it was a high priority for Stephen, although I don't have any direct knowledge of the conversations he might have had with CBS."

Regardless, what is clear is that at best the reported $40 million a year loss is the absolute worst case scenario. And the truth is that the loss this year will be substantial, but likely at least $10 million less than network sources are telling reporters.

I've reached out to the network and Paramount Global as well as to Stephen Colbert and have not received a response. 

https://toomuchtv.substack.com/p/too-much-tv-exclusive-reports-of

 

[oblong]

We will know it when Colbert goes to another entity.

[ewsieg]

This Colbert thing makes about as much sense as the WNBA players demanding NBA salaries.  40 million dollar loss is bull****?  Because sources state that if they continued it past it's current contract, it may have lost around 40 million dollars a year, but it only lost probably 25-28 million this year, so the excuse that it was losing money is not fair?!?!?!

If it was about Colbert and Colbert only 1) they send him packing immediately and pay out the rest of his contract and 2) they announce a new (cheaper) person to replace him.  They immediately came out and said there would be no show going forward.  

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

This Colbert thing makes about as much sense as the WNBA players demanding NBA salaries. 

Decision made by a committee, probably with a lot of lawyers in the room. A piece of this guy's priorities, a piece of that guy's agenda, a bit of CYA for the other guy. When it's all said and done they pat themselves on the back for their optimized solution while  it's actually a Camel that plods out the door.

[oblong]

You can’t trust entertainment accounting. They can make it come out any way they want for their narrative. 

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

You can’t trust entertainment accounting. They can make it come out any way they want for their narrative. 

Certainly cannot understand why we are supposed to just accept Paramount's framing given the obvious conflict of interest at hand 

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, ewsieg said:

This Colbert thing makes about as much sense as the WNBA players demanding NBA salaries.  40 million dollar loss is bull****?  Because sources state that if they continued it past it's current contract, it may have lost around 40 million dollars a year, but it only lost probably 25-28 million this year, so the excuse that it was losing money is not fair?!?!?!

If it was about Colbert and Colbert only 1) they send him packing immediately and pay out the rest of his contract and 2) they announce a new (cheaper) person to replace him.  They immediately came out and said there would be no show going forward.  

If it was really only about losing money, wouldn’t they have axed him immediately, instead of continuing to lose money for another nine months?