Nate Anderson
5-11-11
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/after-approving-comcastnbc-deal-fcc-commish-becomes-comcast-lobbyist.ars
Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the two Republican Commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission, plans to step down—and right into a top lobbying job at Comcast-NBC.
The news, reported this afternoon by the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, and Politico, comes after the hugely controversial merger of Comcast and NBC earlier this year. At the time, Baker objected to FCC attempts to impose conditions on the deal and argued that the "complex and significant transaction" could "bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms."
Four months after approving the massive transaction, Attwell Baker will take a top DC lobbying job for the new Comcast-NBC entity, according to reports.
The response of groups like Free Press was expected in its anger, but not without merit. "No wonder the public is so nauseated by business as usual in Washington—where the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows," said Free Press' Craig Aaron. "The continuously revolving door at the FCC continues to erode any prospects for good public policy. We hope—but won't hold our breath—that her replacement will be someone who is not just greasing the way for their next industry job."
Such cash-ins, of course, are a bipartisan affair in Washington.
Attwell Baker this afternoon released a statement once the news broke, explaining that she would leave on June 3 and that she was "privileged to have had the opportunity to serve the country at a time of critical transformation in the telecommunications industry. The continued deployment of our broadband infrastructures will meaningfully impact the lives of all Americans. I am happy to have played a small part in this success."
Showing posts with label NBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NBC. Show all posts
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Two and a Half Men Is Better Than None
Alec Baldwin
March 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/alec-baldwin-charlie-sheen_b_834847.html
I read in the paper today that Conan O'Brien's documentary is out this weekend. The one that chronicles the purportedly healing journey/concert tour he went on after his messy divorce from NBC. I also read that Charlie Sheen is suing Warner Brothers for $100 million and the two of these things reminded me of one of the more character-building experiences that I had in my career, many years ago.
People often ask me why I never continued in the role of Jack Ryan in the movies based on Tom Clancy's great novels. Usually, I have given a half truth as an answer, something about scheduling conflicts and so forth. But the truth is the studio cut my throat. Or, more specifically, an executive at the studio named David Kirkpatrick who was, as studio executives are on their way both up and down the ladder, eager to prove he had that special quality that studio executives are eager to display. That quality is an utter lack of sentimentality while transacting deals around a business built on sentimentality.
The run of events in 1991 went like this. John McTiernan, who directed The Hunt For Red October, called me repeatedly over a period of a few days and that got my attention because John was not someone who did that. I knew it must be something important. I had been traveling to Syracuse to see my mother who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. I had lost my dad in 1983 to lung cancer when he was fifty-five and the idea of being an orphan, technically speaking, at the age of 33 weighed heavily on me. It took a few rounds before John and I connected.
On the phone, John told me that during the period of the previous few months, he had been negotiating to do a film with a very famous movie star who had dropped out of his film days before so that he could go star in the sequels to The Hunt For Red October. John further told me that Paramount owed the actor a large sum of money for a greenlit film that fell apart prior to this, and pushing me aside would help to alleviate that debt and put someone with much greater strength at the box office than mine in the role. I sat there mildly stunned because not only was I in an active negotiation with Paramount, but for them to negotiate simultaneously with another actor was against the law. My mother was about to have a double mastectomy. I asked John if he was sure about all of this and he said yes, he had talked with the famous actor directly who confirmed the story. All of this served to explain why the studio would not close my deal over what I thought were some relatively arbitrary issues surrounding the dates of production.
I got a call from Mace Neufeld, the film's producer who I had worked with on Hunt. The call resembled that final scene in Sorry, Wrong Number (great film), where Burt Lancaster exhorts Barbara Stanwyck to get out of bed and scream for help lest she be killed by emissaries of Lancaster himself. Neufeld told me to sign whatever deal they were offering and "the rest would take care of itself."
I flew from Syracuse to Long Island to attend to some business. I drove to a friend's home where I was to have dinner and was informed by my assistant that I should call David Kirkpatrick right away. Kirkpatrick was a beady-eyed, untalented tool who had seemed like he was up to something throughout my sequel negotiation. Now, he became vividly clear. I had to decide if I would agree to an open-ended clause relating to dates for the first sequel and thus completely give up the chance to do one of the greatest dramas in the American theatre, or he would rescind my offer. They had the other guy all lined up, and they were looking for a way to gut me. I thought he wasn't serious at first. Then, when I realized he was, I chose A Streetcar Named Desire.
A lot changed in my life with that decision. And I do not regret it. The movie and television business are filled with some of the most wonderful and talented people you could ever know. It is also the rock under which you find the biggest, lyingest, thievingest scumbags on Earth. (They tend to be the ones that are not in any craft or union related to actually making a movie.) However, one of the great oddities in show business is how someone you respect can have a good experience with someone you loathe. Conan had a tough time reconciling Jeff Zucker's decisions. Maybe I would have too. Meanwhile, Jeff has only been supportive of me during my recent years at NBC. Go figure.
Conan has moved on and his great talent is undiminished by his difficult experiences. I had wanted to say to him back then what I will now offer to Charlie. You can't win. Really. You can't. When executives at studios and networks move up to the highest ranks, they are given a book. The book is called How to Handle Actors. And one principle held dear in that book is that no actor is greater than the show itself when the show is a hit. And, in that regard, they are often right. Add to that the fact that the actor who is torturing their diseased egos is a drug-addled, porn star-squiring, near-Joycean Internet ranter, and they really want you to go.
Granted, it didn't get real until you insulted them. And your suit may have real grounds.
But you know what you should do? Take a nap. Get a shower. Call Chuck. Go on Letterman and make an apology. Write a huge check to the B'Nai Brith. And then beg for your job back. Your fans demand it. You will never win because when you are as big a douchebag as some of these guys are, they have no choice but to snuff you. (Do you secretly want to get snuffed? So you can go back and make movies?)
Sober up, Charlie. And get back on TV, if it's not too late. This is America. You want to really piss off Chuck and Warner Brothers and CBS? Beg for America's forgiveness. They will give it to you. And then go back. You are a great television star. And you've got the gig. As I learned from closely observing Tony Bennett so I could impersonate him on SNL, this is supposed to be fun.
P.S.... buy Cryer a really nice car.
March 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/alec-baldwin-charlie-sheen_b_834847.html
I read in the paper today that Conan O'Brien's documentary is out this weekend. The one that chronicles the purportedly healing journey/concert tour he went on after his messy divorce from NBC. I also read that Charlie Sheen is suing Warner Brothers for $100 million and the two of these things reminded me of one of the more character-building experiences that I had in my career, many years ago.
People often ask me why I never continued in the role of Jack Ryan in the movies based on Tom Clancy's great novels. Usually, I have given a half truth as an answer, something about scheduling conflicts and so forth. But the truth is the studio cut my throat. Or, more specifically, an executive at the studio named David Kirkpatrick who was, as studio executives are on their way both up and down the ladder, eager to prove he had that special quality that studio executives are eager to display. That quality is an utter lack of sentimentality while transacting deals around a business built on sentimentality.
The run of events in 1991 went like this. John McTiernan, who directed The Hunt For Red October, called me repeatedly over a period of a few days and that got my attention because John was not someone who did that. I knew it must be something important. I had been traveling to Syracuse to see my mother who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. I had lost my dad in 1983 to lung cancer when he was fifty-five and the idea of being an orphan, technically speaking, at the age of 33 weighed heavily on me. It took a few rounds before John and I connected.
On the phone, John told me that during the period of the previous few months, he had been negotiating to do a film with a very famous movie star who had dropped out of his film days before so that he could go star in the sequels to The Hunt For Red October. John further told me that Paramount owed the actor a large sum of money for a greenlit film that fell apart prior to this, and pushing me aside would help to alleviate that debt and put someone with much greater strength at the box office than mine in the role. I sat there mildly stunned because not only was I in an active negotiation with Paramount, but for them to negotiate simultaneously with another actor was against the law. My mother was about to have a double mastectomy. I asked John if he was sure about all of this and he said yes, he had talked with the famous actor directly who confirmed the story. All of this served to explain why the studio would not close my deal over what I thought were some relatively arbitrary issues surrounding the dates of production.
I got a call from Mace Neufeld, the film's producer who I had worked with on Hunt. The call resembled that final scene in Sorry, Wrong Number (great film), where Burt Lancaster exhorts Barbara Stanwyck to get out of bed and scream for help lest she be killed by emissaries of Lancaster himself. Neufeld told me to sign whatever deal they were offering and "the rest would take care of itself."
I flew from Syracuse to Long Island to attend to some business. I drove to a friend's home where I was to have dinner and was informed by my assistant that I should call David Kirkpatrick right away. Kirkpatrick was a beady-eyed, untalented tool who had seemed like he was up to something throughout my sequel negotiation. Now, he became vividly clear. I had to decide if I would agree to an open-ended clause relating to dates for the first sequel and thus completely give up the chance to do one of the greatest dramas in the American theatre, or he would rescind my offer. They had the other guy all lined up, and they were looking for a way to gut me. I thought he wasn't serious at first. Then, when I realized he was, I chose A Streetcar Named Desire.
A lot changed in my life with that decision. And I do not regret it. The movie and television business are filled with some of the most wonderful and talented people you could ever know. It is also the rock under which you find the biggest, lyingest, thievingest scumbags on Earth. (They tend to be the ones that are not in any craft or union related to actually making a movie.) However, one of the great oddities in show business is how someone you respect can have a good experience with someone you loathe. Conan had a tough time reconciling Jeff Zucker's decisions. Maybe I would have too. Meanwhile, Jeff has only been supportive of me during my recent years at NBC. Go figure.
Conan has moved on and his great talent is undiminished by his difficult experiences. I had wanted to say to him back then what I will now offer to Charlie. You can't win. Really. You can't. When executives at studios and networks move up to the highest ranks, they are given a book. The book is called How to Handle Actors. And one principle held dear in that book is that no actor is greater than the show itself when the show is a hit. And, in that regard, they are often right. Add to that the fact that the actor who is torturing their diseased egos is a drug-addled, porn star-squiring, near-Joycean Internet ranter, and they really want you to go.
Granted, it didn't get real until you insulted them. And your suit may have real grounds.
But you know what you should do? Take a nap. Get a shower. Call Chuck. Go on Letterman and make an apology. Write a huge check to the B'Nai Brith. And then beg for your job back. Your fans demand it. You will never win because when you are as big a douchebag as some of these guys are, they have no choice but to snuff you. (Do you secretly want to get snuffed? So you can go back and make movies?)
Sober up, Charlie. And get back on TV, if it's not too late. This is America. You want to really piss off Chuck and Warner Brothers and CBS? Beg for America's forgiveness. They will give it to you. And then go back. You are a great television star. And you've got the gig. As I learned from closely observing Tony Bennett so I could impersonate him on SNL, this is supposed to be fun.
P.S.... buy Cryer a really nice car.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/netflix-partner-says-comcast-toll-threatens-online-video-delivery/
November 29, 2010
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
BRIAN STELTER
Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix’s streaming movies, said Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that “threatens the open Internet,” and indicated that it would seek government intervention. Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network neutrality, instead calling it “a simple commercial dispute.”
The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission.
“With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content,” Thomas C. Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday.
Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast’s imminent acquisition of NBC Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast’s Internet network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.
In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs. “This may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand what’s at stake,” said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner.
There is no known case of Comcast ever slowing the traffic to one of its direct competitors, but it did delay some peer-to-peer file traffic in a much-litigated case several years ago. Comcast says it supports an open Internet — but also says that it needs to be able to manage its expensive and still-evolving networks, which are essentially on- and off-ramps to the Internet.
Level 3 in essence operates a highway that connects to those ramps and handles traffic to and from individual Web sites. Comcast customers rely on the company’s on- and off-ramps from that highway. With nearly 17 million broadband Internet customers, Comcast is the nation’s largest such service provider.
The scuffle between the two started on Nov. 19, when Level 3 says Comcast demanded a recurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.”
Three days later, under pressure from Comcast, “Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions,” Mr. Stortz said.
Mr. Stortz did not cite Netflix in his statement. But just a week before Comcast’s demand, Level 3 announced a multiyear deal to support Netflix’s rapidly growing streaming service.
A recent study found that at peak times, Netflix represented 20 percent of Internet download traffic in the United States. That makes it a de facto competitor for incumbent distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which are eager to protect both the subscription television business and the emerging video-on-demand business.
Mr. Stortz implied that Comcast was taking the action to impair companies that compete with its own cable and Internet services.
A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment Monday. Netflix, which announced a new pricing structure last week, is gradually weaning its customers from DVDs by mail in favor of online streaming, making any new costs a serious concern.
Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3 was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.
Comcast is “already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it seems to be working for everybody else,” Mr. Waz said. “Level 3 is trying to change the rules of the game.”
If nothing else, the dispute demonstrates that consumers have little, if any, idea how convoluted it can be to transmit video to a computer or mobile phone.
Nonetheless, on Monday night, public interest groups that have steadfastly opposed the combination of Comcast and NBC Universal argued that the Level 3 case proved that Comcast would discriminate against competitors if it could.
“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a net neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of one such group, Public Knowledge, in a statement.
Mr. Stortz said Level 3 would be approaching government regulators this week and “asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.”
Mr. McGuire, of Gartner, said, “There is no law here. There are only guiding principles. F.C.C. clarity on this kind of thing is going to be required.”
November 29, 2010
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
BRIAN STELTER
Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix’s streaming movies, said Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that “threatens the open Internet,” and indicated that it would seek government intervention. Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network neutrality, instead calling it “a simple commercial dispute.”
The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission.
“With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content,” Thomas C. Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday.
Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast’s imminent acquisition of NBC Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast’s Internet network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.
In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs. “This may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand what’s at stake,” said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner.
There is no known case of Comcast ever slowing the traffic to one of its direct competitors, but it did delay some peer-to-peer file traffic in a much-litigated case several years ago. Comcast says it supports an open Internet — but also says that it needs to be able to manage its expensive and still-evolving networks, which are essentially on- and off-ramps to the Internet.
Level 3 in essence operates a highway that connects to those ramps and handles traffic to and from individual Web sites. Comcast customers rely on the company’s on- and off-ramps from that highway. With nearly 17 million broadband Internet customers, Comcast is the nation’s largest such service provider.
The scuffle between the two started on Nov. 19, when Level 3 says Comcast demanded a recurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.”
Three days later, under pressure from Comcast, “Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions,” Mr. Stortz said.
Mr. Stortz did not cite Netflix in his statement. But just a week before Comcast’s demand, Level 3 announced a multiyear deal to support Netflix’s rapidly growing streaming service.
A recent study found that at peak times, Netflix represented 20 percent of Internet download traffic in the United States. That makes it a de facto competitor for incumbent distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which are eager to protect both the subscription television business and the emerging video-on-demand business.
Mr. Stortz implied that Comcast was taking the action to impair companies that compete with its own cable and Internet services.
A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment Monday. Netflix, which announced a new pricing structure last week, is gradually weaning its customers from DVDs by mail in favor of online streaming, making any new costs a serious concern.
Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3 was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.
Comcast is “already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it seems to be working for everybody else,” Mr. Waz said. “Level 3 is trying to change the rules of the game.”
If nothing else, the dispute demonstrates that consumers have little, if any, idea how convoluted it can be to transmit video to a computer or mobile phone.
Nonetheless, on Monday night, public interest groups that have steadfastly opposed the combination of Comcast and NBC Universal argued that the Level 3 case proved that Comcast would discriminate against competitors if it could.
“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a net neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of one such group, Public Knowledge, in a statement.
Mr. Stortz said Level 3 would be approaching government regulators this week and “asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.”
Mr. McGuire, of Gartner, said, “There is no law here. There are only guiding principles. F.C.C. clarity on this kind of thing is going to be required.”
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Late Night Wars, Exposed
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/10/28/the-late-night-war-of-2010-gets-its-first-official-history
Late Night Wars, Exposed: New Book Reveals Why Conan Lost, How NBC Fawned Over Leno
Nate Jones
10-28-10
Now all it needs is a Ken Burns documentary!
Vanity Fair today just released an exclusive except from Bill Carter's upcoming book The War For Late Night. There are no landmark surprises — Jay Leno comes off as affably opportunistic, Conan O'Brien as a tragic self-dramatist with a little bit of a martyrdom complex — but it's a worthwhile look at the procedural negotiations that led to last winter's messy divorce. The five best revelations:
1. The man with the best contract won
An oversight by Conan's lawyers in their negotiations with NBC was the hidden germ of the scheduling conflict. As Keller tells it, when David Letterman was negotiating his move to CBS, he made the network give him a contractual guarantee that his show would air immediately after CBS' late local news. Jay Leno's Tonight Show deal had similar language. During a dinner with Conan O'Brien's producer and manager in December 2009, Letterman's producer Robert Morton happened to mention the clause:
“You guys got that for Conan, too, I'm sure,” Morty said.
Crucially, they had not, leading to NBC's infamous attempt to shift Conan's Tonight Show back to 12:05 to make room for Jay Leno at 11:35.
2. Leno for a second there thought he was fired
Leno knew his 10 p.m. show was underperforming and that NBC affiliates were threatening to revolt over the issue. When Jeff Gaspin, head of NBC's entertainment division, visited Leno's studio, it was clear there was a problem. Gaspin told Leno the network was aborting the failed Jay-Leno-in-prime-time experiment, news that Jay met with a glum "OK." Then Gaspin told him the good part: Jay would be going back to 11:35.
Jay's relief, Gaspin noticed, was instantaneous. His face lifted and brightened. “Yeah, let's do it!” he said, the pitch of his voice almost as high as his performance level.
Leno's people were initially suspicious of NBC, especially after the network explained its full scheduling plan. Jay doubted Conan would go along with it; Gaspin told him they were 75% sure Conan would. After being assured that nothing would change with the production of a half-as-long Jay Leno Show, that no one on the crew would get fired, Jay assented to NBC's plan.
(This section, incidentally, reflects quite well on Jay Leno. He's always painted himself as essentially passive in the whole story, and Carter's account appears to verify this. Jay is much more acted-upon than active.)
3. Conan first launched his zingers at NBC in private...
Conan spent much of December with premonitions of having The Tonight Show taken from him. When he was informed of the proposed schedule, he initially remained calm, even as he chafed as NBC executives explained how painful the decision had been for them, how it had been a "Sophie's choice." Finally, he laid his case for keeping his show in the same time slot to the executives. When they apologized, saying that they felt they were letting both Jay and Conan down, the redhead let it out:
"What does Jay have on you?” Conan asked, his voice still low, his tone still even. “What does this guy have on you people? What the hell is it about Jay?”
4. ...But the jokes in public were the ones that finally convinced NBC that Conan wouldn't go along
Even after Conan's "People of Earth" statement, NBC quietly hoped he would reconsider his options and decide to accept the network's plan. That changed during Conan's monologue on January 13, when the host joked, "I just want to say to the kids out there watching: You can do anything you want in life. Unless Jay Leno wants to do it too."
The joke displeased Jay (who, still seeing the move as a favor to Conan, wondered why he would have to cut his show in half for someone who mocked him in public) and NBC executives. It was the beginning of the end:
Gaspin asked himself: How could these guys work back-to-back if Conan hates Jay? There was no longer any question about resolving this in a fashion that might keep Conan at NBC, as far as Gaspin was concerned. It had come down to how the matter would be settled, and Conan would go on his way.
5. Leno's people thought Conan handled the situation with regrettable naïveté
Leno and his team could not understand the self-righteousness that led Conan to walk away from The Tonight Show. To them, Conan was ignoring the fact that, by failing to bring in ratings, he had failed
When Jay was a kid he'd dreamed of hosting The Tonight Show, too. But when he was an adult it became his employment ... one that required bringing in winning ratings. On Jay's side of the late-night divide, pretending that ratings didn't matter so much qualified as a form of arrogance, of a kind to which he and [his people] could just not subscribe because, as they saw it, they were too busy doing shows.
It's a great account of the fiercest pop-culture war of our time, one that you really should take time out to delve into sometime today. Go to Vanity Fair to read the whole thing.
Late Night Wars, Exposed: New Book Reveals Why Conan Lost, How NBC Fawned Over Leno
Nate Jones
10-28-10
Now all it needs is a Ken Burns documentary!
Vanity Fair today just released an exclusive except from Bill Carter's upcoming book The War For Late Night. There are no landmark surprises — Jay Leno comes off as affably opportunistic, Conan O'Brien as a tragic self-dramatist with a little bit of a martyrdom complex — but it's a worthwhile look at the procedural negotiations that led to last winter's messy divorce. The five best revelations:
1. The man with the best contract won
An oversight by Conan's lawyers in their negotiations with NBC was the hidden germ of the scheduling conflict. As Keller tells it, when David Letterman was negotiating his move to CBS, he made the network give him a contractual guarantee that his show would air immediately after CBS' late local news. Jay Leno's Tonight Show deal had similar language. During a dinner with Conan O'Brien's producer and manager in December 2009, Letterman's producer Robert Morton happened to mention the clause:
“You guys got that for Conan, too, I'm sure,” Morty said.
Crucially, they had not, leading to NBC's infamous attempt to shift Conan's Tonight Show back to 12:05 to make room for Jay Leno at 11:35.
2. Leno for a second there thought he was fired
Leno knew his 10 p.m. show was underperforming and that NBC affiliates were threatening to revolt over the issue. When Jeff Gaspin, head of NBC's entertainment division, visited Leno's studio, it was clear there was a problem. Gaspin told Leno the network was aborting the failed Jay-Leno-in-prime-time experiment, news that Jay met with a glum "OK." Then Gaspin told him the good part: Jay would be going back to 11:35.
Jay's relief, Gaspin noticed, was instantaneous. His face lifted and brightened. “Yeah, let's do it!” he said, the pitch of his voice almost as high as his performance level.
Leno's people were initially suspicious of NBC, especially after the network explained its full scheduling plan. Jay doubted Conan would go along with it; Gaspin told him they were 75% sure Conan would. After being assured that nothing would change with the production of a half-as-long Jay Leno Show, that no one on the crew would get fired, Jay assented to NBC's plan.
(This section, incidentally, reflects quite well on Jay Leno. He's always painted himself as essentially passive in the whole story, and Carter's account appears to verify this. Jay is much more acted-upon than active.)
3. Conan first launched his zingers at NBC in private...
Conan spent much of December with premonitions of having The Tonight Show taken from him. When he was informed of the proposed schedule, he initially remained calm, even as he chafed as NBC executives explained how painful the decision had been for them, how it had been a "Sophie's choice." Finally, he laid his case for keeping his show in the same time slot to the executives. When they apologized, saying that they felt they were letting both Jay and Conan down, the redhead let it out:
"What does Jay have on you?” Conan asked, his voice still low, his tone still even. “What does this guy have on you people? What the hell is it about Jay?”
4. ...But the jokes in public were the ones that finally convinced NBC that Conan wouldn't go along
Even after Conan's "People of Earth" statement, NBC quietly hoped he would reconsider his options and decide to accept the network's plan. That changed during Conan's monologue on January 13, when the host joked, "I just want to say to the kids out there watching: You can do anything you want in life. Unless Jay Leno wants to do it too."
The joke displeased Jay (who, still seeing the move as a favor to Conan, wondered why he would have to cut his show in half for someone who mocked him in public) and NBC executives. It was the beginning of the end:
Gaspin asked himself: How could these guys work back-to-back if Conan hates Jay? There was no longer any question about resolving this in a fashion that might keep Conan at NBC, as far as Gaspin was concerned. It had come down to how the matter would be settled, and Conan would go on his way.
5. Leno's people thought Conan handled the situation with regrettable naïveté
Leno and his team could not understand the self-righteousness that led Conan to walk away from The Tonight Show. To them, Conan was ignoring the fact that, by failing to bring in ratings, he had failed
When Jay was a kid he'd dreamed of hosting The Tonight Show, too. But when he was an adult it became his employment ... one that required bringing in winning ratings. On Jay's side of the late-night divide, pretending that ratings didn't matter so much qualified as a form of arrogance, of a kind to which he and [his people] could just not subscribe because, as they saw it, they were too busy doing shows.
It's a great account of the fiercest pop-culture war of our time, one that you really should take time out to delve into sometime today. Go to Vanity Fair to read the whole thing.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Coalition urges FCC to block proposed merger of Comcast-NBC
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/104477-coalition-urges-fcc-to-block-comcast-nbc-merger
Coalition urges FCC to block proposed merger of Comcast-NBC
Gautham Nagesh
06/21/10
A coalition of media companies, unions and nonprofits is urging the Federal Communications Commission to block the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal.
The coalition, made up of organizations including media giant Bloomberg, the Writers Guild of America, West and advocacy groups like Free Press and Media Access Project, wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday voicing their opposition to the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal.
Monday is the last day for organizations to submit public comment to the FCC on the proposed merger, which would create a new $30 billion joint venture merging the Philadelphia cable giant's content division with NBC Universal's (NBCU) stable of television networks, film studios and theme parks. Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger, (R-Calif.), David Paterson, (D-N.Y.) and Ed Rendell (D-Pa.) have expressed support for the merger.
The groups argue the new entity would have unprecedented control over the country's media landscape, raising antitrust concerns.
"The proposed merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal is poised to fundamentally alter the landscape of the U.S. media market," the letter states. "We are a group of varied organizations with many specific concerns with this merger, but we have joined together because the threat of this merger to consumers is so great."
"As filed," it goes on, "we oppose this merger."
According to the letter, the new entity created by the merger would include the largest cable company, the largest residential broadband Internet service provider, the owner of one of the four national broadcast networks, several prominent local stations, cable networks and some of the most popular websites.
This would give the company "a degree of market power unrivaled in our nation's media history," the letter claims.
Comcast executive vice president for public policy David Cohen responded to criticism of the deal Monday afternoon in a lengthy blog post citing the numerous elected officials, advocacy groups and labor organizations that have endorsed the merger. He also indicated that many critics are motivated by business interests, not concern for consumers.
"It is important to keep in mind as you read the comments from opponents of this transaction that the businesses in which Comcast operates in today – distribution, programming, online, high-speed Internet, and voice — are all fiercely competitive," Cohen writes.
"Comcast and NBCU don’t compete against each other in most segments of the market, so there is no new concentration. There are no cable systems involved in this deal, so Comcast’s distribution platform will not grow."
“If the Comcast-NBC deal goes through, it would be one of the largest media mergers in a generation, leaving Americans with even higher cable bills and fewer diverse, independent choices on the dial," said Free Press President Josh Silver. "Approval of the deal would be business as usual in Washington, letting the largest companies have their way at the public’s expense."
Silver said the deal is particularly bad for consumers in the 12 markets where Comcast is the leading cable and broadband Internet provider and NBC has a local TV station, including Washington, D.C. He also warned the deal could threaten the viability of online video sites like Hulu.com, claiming Comcast could prioritize its own online content in violation of the principle of net neutrality.
Sen. Herb Kohl, (D-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, wrote to the FCC last month asking the commission to impose a host of conditions on the deal, including a promise from Comcast not to discriminate against content from other networks.
The full list of organizations that co-signed the letter follows:
Bloomberg LP
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
Free Press
Media Access Project
The National Association of Independent Networks
The National Coalition of African-American Owned Media
National Consumers League
The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies
National Telecommunications Cooperative Association
Public Knowledge
WealthTV
Writers Guild of America, West
Coalition urges FCC to block proposed merger of Comcast-NBC
Gautham Nagesh
06/21/10
A coalition of media companies, unions and nonprofits is urging the Federal Communications Commission to block the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal.
The coalition, made up of organizations including media giant Bloomberg, the Writers Guild of America, West and advocacy groups like Free Press and Media Access Project, wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday voicing their opposition to the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal.
Monday is the last day for organizations to submit public comment to the FCC on the proposed merger, which would create a new $30 billion joint venture merging the Philadelphia cable giant's content division with NBC Universal's (NBCU) stable of television networks, film studios and theme parks. Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger, (R-Calif.), David Paterson, (D-N.Y.) and Ed Rendell (D-Pa.) have expressed support for the merger.
The groups argue the new entity would have unprecedented control over the country's media landscape, raising antitrust concerns.
"The proposed merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal is poised to fundamentally alter the landscape of the U.S. media market," the letter states. "We are a group of varied organizations with many specific concerns with this merger, but we have joined together because the threat of this merger to consumers is so great."
"As filed," it goes on, "we oppose this merger."
According to the letter, the new entity created by the merger would include the largest cable company, the largest residential broadband Internet service provider, the owner of one of the four national broadcast networks, several prominent local stations, cable networks and some of the most popular websites.
This would give the company "a degree of market power unrivaled in our nation's media history," the letter claims.
Comcast executive vice president for public policy David Cohen responded to criticism of the deal Monday afternoon in a lengthy blog post citing the numerous elected officials, advocacy groups and labor organizations that have endorsed the merger. He also indicated that many critics are motivated by business interests, not concern for consumers.
"It is important to keep in mind as you read the comments from opponents of this transaction that the businesses in which Comcast operates in today – distribution, programming, online, high-speed Internet, and voice — are all fiercely competitive," Cohen writes.
"Comcast and NBCU don’t compete against each other in most segments of the market, so there is no new concentration. There are no cable systems involved in this deal, so Comcast’s distribution platform will not grow."
“If the Comcast-NBC deal goes through, it would be one of the largest media mergers in a generation, leaving Americans with even higher cable bills and fewer diverse, independent choices on the dial," said Free Press President Josh Silver. "Approval of the deal would be business as usual in Washington, letting the largest companies have their way at the public’s expense."
Silver said the deal is particularly bad for consumers in the 12 markets where Comcast is the leading cable and broadband Internet provider and NBC has a local TV station, including Washington, D.C. He also warned the deal could threaten the viability of online video sites like Hulu.com, claiming Comcast could prioritize its own online content in violation of the principle of net neutrality.
Sen. Herb Kohl, (D-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, wrote to the FCC last month asking the commission to impose a host of conditions on the deal, including a promise from Comcast not to discriminate against content from other networks.
The full list of organizations that co-signed the letter follows:
Bloomberg LP
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
Free Press
Media Access Project
The National Association of Independent Networks
The National Coalition of African-American Owned Media
National Consumers League
The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies
National Telecommunications Cooperative Association
Public Knowledge
WealthTV
Writers Guild of America, West
Monday, February 22, 2010
Letterman's 'Late Show' promo is spot on
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020703677.html
Once again, Letterman's 'Late Show' promo is spot on
By Tom Shales
Monday, February 8, 2010
CBS may have stolen its own show last night with the telecast of Super Bowl XLIV, thanks to a network promo that stole thunder from all the costly commercials sprinkled liberally through the game.
It tended to upstage ads that boasted the usual snazzy pyrotechnics, lavish production, and even controversy -- as in the case of a spot for the group Focus on the Family that rather vaguely endorsed alternatives to abortion.
Even the ads that tried to titillate viewers with sexual imagery and near-naked performers probably stirred less buzz than the 15-second promo for David Letterman's "Late Show."
The spot, which aired in the second quarter, opened with Letterman sitting on a couch, eating chips and watching TV. The camera pulled back to reveal two companions watching with Dave: Oprah Winfrey, who appeared in a similar spot in 2007, and the totally unexpected Jay Leno, Letterman's rival since Leno snatched NBC's "Tonight Show" out from under him in 1992.
"This is the worst Super Bowl party ever," Letterman says. "You're just saying that because I'm here," Leno counters. Viewers had to be wondering if their eyes deceived them -- why would Leno and Letterman be appearing together? -- and if the whole thing was some diabolical computer-generated trick.
Letterman himself dreamed up the spot and wrote it, according to Rob Burnett, president of Letterman's Worldwide Pants production company. "Dave is ruled by one law," Burnett said from the Super Bowl. "Is it funny? And if it's funny, let's do it." The notion of having an NBC star on CBS air was cleared by CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves, executives at NBC, and Leno, who when contacted by Dave's people, agreed immediately, reportedly telling a Letterman staffer, "This is what show business should be."
The spot was taped Tuesday night in the Ed Sullivan Theater on Broadway, where Letterman's show is performed. Winfrey was smuggled in unnoticed and Leno arrived in a disguise that included dark glasses and a fake mustache. "We were desperate to keep this a secret," Burnett said. "All three of them were professional, friendly and cordial for the 28 minutes or so that it took to do the spot."
"Everybody wins in this," Burnett said -- partly because all three performers, especially Leno and Letterman, who've been sniping at each other in recent monologues on their shows -- come off looking like good sports.
Elsewhere during the Super Bowl, the splashy and extravagant commercials spilled out in punishing profusion, though some proved highly entertaining and clever. The anti-abortion spot, which CBS aired despite criticism for letting a controversial issue intrude on the fun and frolic of the game, got upstaged by -- of all things -- the Snickers commercial that immediately preceded it.
That ad had Betty White, the veteran TV comedienne, supposedly being tackled during a backyard football game. Then in the Focus on the Family spot, the mother of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow was also tackled on-camera, and knocked clear out of the frame.
Many sponsors attempted humor, of course. Bud Light showed scientists breaking into a wild orgy when it appeared an asteroid was about to smash into, and destroy, the earth; it turned out to be a mere fizzle that hit their telescope. Another ad for Bud Light, in which people's speaking voices were altered by the hip-hop staple Auto-Tune, was mostly annoying.
Coca-Cola's biggest spot featured many of the characters from television's longtime classic cartoon comedy "The Simpsons." The spot starred evil Springfield billionaire Montgomery Burns, who went broke as the spot began. Beyoncé was seen in another spot late in the game, but only for a second; she was scooped up by a mechanical hand as part of an overly busy ad for Vizio.
An oddly recurring theme had to do with men asserting their masculinity, or attempting to assert it, as well as the perpetual male fear of emasculation. In an ad for a very portable television called FloTV, a man was seen being dragged through a torturous shopping trip by his girlfriend while sportscaster Jim Nantz ridiculed him. (A later, more serious ad for FloTV, recapped the entire history of television in a minute or so, images both sublime and ridiculous flying by on the screen.)
Men in their underwear kept popping up -- in a Coke ad, a man sleepwalks in the wilderness, clad in boxer shorts and a T-shirt. His odyssey ends only after he finds a cold bottle of Coke.
An ad for Dockers was keyed to the mantra "I wear no pants!" and featured men in their underwear romping around aimlessly. A funny ad for Career Builder.com, depicting the notion of Casual Friday run amok, showed men and women, most of them anything but physically fit, spending a day at the office in their undies.
Men and their traditional roles were also mocked, but somehow also celebrated, in ads introducing Dove for Men, a line of toiletries. A man raced through a recitation of the chores and good deeds he had obediently done to the tune of Rossini's "William Tell Overture," once the theme of "The Lone Ranger" on radio and TV.
An ad for Dodge Charger called the muscle car "Man's Last Stand" after depicting a supposedly put-upon male who listed all the nice things he did for his female mate. Were these ads for a post-feminist age? They seemed to have a retro appeal -- for better and worse. Probably worse.
Stars appearing included the aging rock group Kiss for Dr Pepper with "a kiss of cherry" (oh, goody), and Brett Favre as he might appear ten years from now -- still vacillating about retirement -- for Hyundai. For the record, Toyota ran a couple of simple ads, black type on a white background, implicitly apologizing for the company's current problems with defective cars and promising "to make things right" -- a hopeful theme, perhaps, for the whole mad parade.
Once again, Letterman's 'Late Show' promo is spot on
By Tom Shales
Monday, February 8, 2010
CBS may have stolen its own show last night with the telecast of Super Bowl XLIV, thanks to a network promo that stole thunder from all the costly commercials sprinkled liberally through the game.
It tended to upstage ads that boasted the usual snazzy pyrotechnics, lavish production, and even controversy -- as in the case of a spot for the group Focus on the Family that rather vaguely endorsed alternatives to abortion.
Even the ads that tried to titillate viewers with sexual imagery and near-naked performers probably stirred less buzz than the 15-second promo for David Letterman's "Late Show."
The spot, which aired in the second quarter, opened with Letterman sitting on a couch, eating chips and watching TV. The camera pulled back to reveal two companions watching with Dave: Oprah Winfrey, who appeared in a similar spot in 2007, and the totally unexpected Jay Leno, Letterman's rival since Leno snatched NBC's "Tonight Show" out from under him in 1992.
"This is the worst Super Bowl party ever," Letterman says. "You're just saying that because I'm here," Leno counters. Viewers had to be wondering if their eyes deceived them -- why would Leno and Letterman be appearing together? -- and if the whole thing was some diabolical computer-generated trick.
Letterman himself dreamed up the spot and wrote it, according to Rob Burnett, president of Letterman's Worldwide Pants production company. "Dave is ruled by one law," Burnett said from the Super Bowl. "Is it funny? And if it's funny, let's do it." The notion of having an NBC star on CBS air was cleared by CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves, executives at NBC, and Leno, who when contacted by Dave's people, agreed immediately, reportedly telling a Letterman staffer, "This is what show business should be."
The spot was taped Tuesday night in the Ed Sullivan Theater on Broadway, where Letterman's show is performed. Winfrey was smuggled in unnoticed and Leno arrived in a disguise that included dark glasses and a fake mustache. "We were desperate to keep this a secret," Burnett said. "All three of them were professional, friendly and cordial for the 28 minutes or so that it took to do the spot."
"Everybody wins in this," Burnett said -- partly because all three performers, especially Leno and Letterman, who've been sniping at each other in recent monologues on their shows -- come off looking like good sports.
Elsewhere during the Super Bowl, the splashy and extravagant commercials spilled out in punishing profusion, though some proved highly entertaining and clever. The anti-abortion spot, which CBS aired despite criticism for letting a controversial issue intrude on the fun and frolic of the game, got upstaged by -- of all things -- the Snickers commercial that immediately preceded it.
That ad had Betty White, the veteran TV comedienne, supposedly being tackled during a backyard football game. Then in the Focus on the Family spot, the mother of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow was also tackled on-camera, and knocked clear out of the frame.
Many sponsors attempted humor, of course. Bud Light showed scientists breaking into a wild orgy when it appeared an asteroid was about to smash into, and destroy, the earth; it turned out to be a mere fizzle that hit their telescope. Another ad for Bud Light, in which people's speaking voices were altered by the hip-hop staple Auto-Tune, was mostly annoying.
Coca-Cola's biggest spot featured many of the characters from television's longtime classic cartoon comedy "The Simpsons." The spot starred evil Springfield billionaire Montgomery Burns, who went broke as the spot began. Beyoncé was seen in another spot late in the game, but only for a second; she was scooped up by a mechanical hand as part of an overly busy ad for Vizio.
An oddly recurring theme had to do with men asserting their masculinity, or attempting to assert it, as well as the perpetual male fear of emasculation. In an ad for a very portable television called FloTV, a man was seen being dragged through a torturous shopping trip by his girlfriend while sportscaster Jim Nantz ridiculed him. (A later, more serious ad for FloTV, recapped the entire history of television in a minute or so, images both sublime and ridiculous flying by on the screen.)
Men in their underwear kept popping up -- in a Coke ad, a man sleepwalks in the wilderness, clad in boxer shorts and a T-shirt. His odyssey ends only after he finds a cold bottle of Coke.
An ad for Dockers was keyed to the mantra "I wear no pants!" and featured men in their underwear romping around aimlessly. A funny ad for Career Builder.com, depicting the notion of Casual Friday run amok, showed men and women, most of them anything but physically fit, spending a day at the office in their undies.
Men and their traditional roles were also mocked, but somehow also celebrated, in ads introducing Dove for Men, a line of toiletries. A man raced through a recitation of the chores and good deeds he had obediently done to the tune of Rossini's "William Tell Overture," once the theme of "The Lone Ranger" on radio and TV.
An ad for Dodge Charger called the muscle car "Man's Last Stand" after depicting a supposedly put-upon male who listed all the nice things he did for his female mate. Were these ads for a post-feminist age? They seemed to have a retro appeal -- for better and worse. Probably worse.
Stars appearing included the aging rock group Kiss for Dr Pepper with "a kiss of cherry" (oh, goody), and Brett Favre as he might appear ten years from now -- still vacillating about retirement -- for Hyundai. For the record, Toyota ran a couple of simple ads, black type on a white background, implicitly apologizing for the company's current problems with defective cars and promising "to make things right" -- a hopeful theme, perhaps, for the whole mad parade.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Jay Leno on 'Oprah'
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2010/01/28/jay-leno-oprah-winfrey
Jan 28, 2010
Jay Leno on 'Oprah': Admits to lying, ridicules Conan's 'Tonight Show': This is damage control?
by Ken Tucker
In a fascinating display of self-pity and hubris, Jay Leno went on Oprah today and really let loose: He said that the plan to return him to The Tonight Show was “a huge mess,” that he’d been “sucker-punched” by Jimmy Kimmel, that he’d lied when he told the public in 2004 he would retire when he left The Tonight Show in 2009, and that there’s “a lot of damage control that has to be done now.” Believe me: There’ll be even more to be done after this Oprah interview.
Jay Leno admitted to Oprah Winfrey that “I told a white lie on the air” when he said in 2004 he’d retire after he left the Tonight Show in 2009. “It was just maybe easier that way.” He said he “assumed” he’d just get a job at another network.
Oprah observed: “Conan said he thought it would be destructive to the franchise” for him to agree to the plan for The Tonight Show appear at 12:05, after an 11:35 Leno show. “Well, if you look at where [Conan's Tonight Show] ratings were” — and here he paused for comic-sarcastic effect — “it was already destructive to the franchise… This was the first time in the 60-year history of The Tonight Show that The Tonight Show would have lost money.” Leno also said, “I hope Conan gets a job somewhere.” Whatta competitor, that Jay!
There were some fascinating exchanges between Oprah and Jay, who sounded as though he thought Winfrey was going to be more sympathetic than she proved to be. Winfrey said, “David Letterman called you, I think, the ‘Big Jaw’ Leno… and you hit back by talking about his infidelity.” Leno said, “Well, I did a joke about that, yes.” ”Even the audience went, ‘Ooo!’” noted Winfrey. ”But it was a good joke,” squeaked Leno. “Did you laugh when you heard it?”
“No,” said Oprah firmly, “I did not. I did not laugh. You know what, I thought that was beneath you.” Leno tried to defend himself. “But how many jokes like that have I done? I did one joke in the middle of the week and I never did another one. I had a cheap shot thrown at me, I threw one cheap shot back and I moved on.” Oprah asked, “So you thought one cheap shot deserves another?” Leno said, “Yeah, it’s OK.” Then Oprah asked, “Do you feel you’re being unfairly portrayed by the media?” Leno said, “Yeah, I think so.”
Amazing figure: A poll conducted on Oprah.com found that 96% of Winfrey’s audience was on Conan’s side in this “mess.”
Leno continues to make much of the idea that he didn’t turn down the 10 p.m. Jay Leno Show offer because he didn’t want to put his staff out of work: “You say to the 170 people who work here, ‘Listen, I don’t want to get my reputation ruined, I don’t want anyone talking bad about me. I’ve got enough money. You people can all fend for yourself.’ That’s… the selfish thing to do.” Yet when Winfrey brought up the number of people who were put out of work on the 10 p.m. scripted shows that were either cancelled or never put into production by NBC because the Leno Show took up a prime-time slot five nights a week, he said feebly, “I wasn’t thinking about that at the time.” Come on. This was a point being brought up in the media almost as soon as the Leno Show was announced.
One thing that didn’t ring true, or at least make sense, as we’ve all heard it: Leno said, “They only offered [The Tonight Show] to me after Conan had turned down [the 12:05 offer].” Really? Seems like O’Brien decided to leave NBC after he’d been told NBC planned to move Jay to 11:35, from most reports.
There was a darkly humorous moment when Oprah asked him if he thought NBC could have handled this better. “Anything they did would have been better than this… If they had come in and shot everybody, it would have been ‘Oh, people were murdered,’ but at least it would have been a two-day story. NBC could not have handled it worse. From 2004 onward, this whole thing was a huge mess.”
When Jimmy Kimmel came on the Leno Show Jan. 14 and used that “10 @ 10? segment to blast Leno, Jay told Winfrey he felt “sucker-punched.” He said he could have “edited it” out, but “when you get sucker-punched, you get right back up again. You don’t whine or complain.”
Still, Leno did his share of whining on Oprah. “It was really agonizing. I would spend a lot of time just thinking about it, going, ‘I think I’m a good guy. Am I a good guy?’”
Jan 28, 2010
Jay Leno on 'Oprah': Admits to lying, ridicules Conan's 'Tonight Show': This is damage control?
by Ken Tucker
In a fascinating display of self-pity and hubris, Jay Leno went on Oprah today and really let loose: He said that the plan to return him to The Tonight Show was “a huge mess,” that he’d been “sucker-punched” by Jimmy Kimmel, that he’d lied when he told the public in 2004 he would retire when he left The Tonight Show in 2009, and that there’s “a lot of damage control that has to be done now.” Believe me: There’ll be even more to be done after this Oprah interview.
Jay Leno admitted to Oprah Winfrey that “I told a white lie on the air” when he said in 2004 he’d retire after he left the Tonight Show in 2009. “It was just maybe easier that way.” He said he “assumed” he’d just get a job at another network.
Oprah observed: “Conan said he thought it would be destructive to the franchise” for him to agree to the plan for The Tonight Show appear at 12:05, after an 11:35 Leno show. “Well, if you look at where [Conan's Tonight Show] ratings were” — and here he paused for comic-sarcastic effect — “it was already destructive to the franchise… This was the first time in the 60-year history of The Tonight Show that The Tonight Show would have lost money.” Leno also said, “I hope Conan gets a job somewhere.” Whatta competitor, that Jay!
There were some fascinating exchanges between Oprah and Jay, who sounded as though he thought Winfrey was going to be more sympathetic than she proved to be. Winfrey said, “David Letterman called you, I think, the ‘Big Jaw’ Leno… and you hit back by talking about his infidelity.” Leno said, “Well, I did a joke about that, yes.” ”Even the audience went, ‘Ooo!’” noted Winfrey. ”But it was a good joke,” squeaked Leno. “Did you laugh when you heard it?”
“No,” said Oprah firmly, “I did not. I did not laugh. You know what, I thought that was beneath you.” Leno tried to defend himself. “But how many jokes like that have I done? I did one joke in the middle of the week and I never did another one. I had a cheap shot thrown at me, I threw one cheap shot back and I moved on.” Oprah asked, “So you thought one cheap shot deserves another?” Leno said, “Yeah, it’s OK.” Then Oprah asked, “Do you feel you’re being unfairly portrayed by the media?” Leno said, “Yeah, I think so.”
Amazing figure: A poll conducted on Oprah.com found that 96% of Winfrey’s audience was on Conan’s side in this “mess.”
Leno continues to make much of the idea that he didn’t turn down the 10 p.m. Jay Leno Show offer because he didn’t want to put his staff out of work: “You say to the 170 people who work here, ‘Listen, I don’t want to get my reputation ruined, I don’t want anyone talking bad about me. I’ve got enough money. You people can all fend for yourself.’ That’s… the selfish thing to do.” Yet when Winfrey brought up the number of people who were put out of work on the 10 p.m. scripted shows that were either cancelled or never put into production by NBC because the Leno Show took up a prime-time slot five nights a week, he said feebly, “I wasn’t thinking about that at the time.” Come on. This was a point being brought up in the media almost as soon as the Leno Show was announced.
One thing that didn’t ring true, or at least make sense, as we’ve all heard it: Leno said, “They only offered [The Tonight Show] to me after Conan had turned down [the 12:05 offer].” Really? Seems like O’Brien decided to leave NBC after he’d been told NBC planned to move Jay to 11:35, from most reports.
There was a darkly humorous moment when Oprah asked him if he thought NBC could have handled this better. “Anything they did would have been better than this… If they had come in and shot everybody, it would have been ‘Oh, people were murdered,’ but at least it would have been a two-day story. NBC could not have handled it worse. From 2004 onward, this whole thing was a huge mess.”
When Jimmy Kimmel came on the Leno Show Jan. 14 and used that “10 @ 10? segment to blast Leno, Jay told Winfrey he felt “sucker-punched.” He said he could have “edited it” out, but “when you get sucker-punched, you get right back up again. You don’t whine or complain.”
Still, Leno did his share of whining on Oprah. “It was really agonizing. I would spend a lot of time just thinking about it, going, ‘I think I’m a good guy. Am I a good guy?’”
Friday, January 29, 2010
Jay Leno triumphs over what's cool
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-leno-demographic23-2010jan23,0,158827.storyJay Leno triumphs over what's cool
NBC's logic-defying decision to replace him with Conan O'Brien was based on misguided demographics.
January 23, 2010
Neal Gabler
January 23, 2010
Every high school in America has its cool kids, the smart, snarky ones who sit in the prow of culture, and its dorks, the plodding if amiable ones who sit in the middle of the boat and try not to make waves. One needs to be reminded of this in assessing what was really at stake in the headline-making Leno-O'Brien war that ended Thursday with an agreement to pay $45 million to O'Brien and his staff.
Celebrities and critics are still taking sides -- the younger, hipper ones decrying how shabbily NBC had treated poor Conan; the older, statelier ones backing Leno -- giving us a clear demonstration of just how much this was a function not so much of money or ratings but of demographics. O'Brien and Leno stood across a cultural and generational divide: young vs. old, cool vs. uncool.
The origins of this battle actually go back to 2004 when NBC decided to boot Leno to the curb five years down the road and replace him with Conan O'Brien, 13 years Leno's junior, after Leno had been helming "The Tonight Show" for 17 years. Aside from Leno, no one seemed particularly startled by this succession, though it turned television logic on its head. Leno was drawing huge ratings, regularly beating the pants off of his CBS competition, David Letterman. By the time he left, he was attracting 5 million viewers a night, and "The Tonight Show" was one of NBC's most profitable franchises. And though Leno's ratings, like all ratings on broadcast television, had declined in his last year, he was still unassailable.
Which was precisely what NBC had expected when Leno took over "The Tonight Show" in 1992 after being tapped over Letterman. Everyone agreed then that Letterman was edgier than Leno, more iconoclastic, and, to a lot of people, funnier. Letterman wore the self-deprecating dork's mantle, but it was a ruse. He was the cool, droll kid who had reinvented late-night television, and NBC decided he might not be the best fit for the square "Tonight Show," where middle-American Johnny Carson had held forth for 30 years.
As it turned out, NBC was right. Leno had been an edgy -- and very funny -- comedian once, but he had gradually drifted to the center where the larger audience was. If that meant blunting his comedy, Leno was willing. By the time he took over "Tonight," Leno's basic commodity was not his humor, which had become toothless, but his likability. He was your grandmother's comedian -- the comedian of the Silent Majority.
Meanwhile, Conan O'Brien was handed Letterman's vacated spot after Leno. O'Brien had never been before the camera. He was a writer. But he was a great idea for a late-night show host: Harvard-educated, then trained at the writers' tables on "Saturday Night Live" and "The Simpsons." It didn't get any cooler than that. Even if he was as jittery as a nervous Chihuahua and milked his handful of jokes for everything they were worth by shameless mugging, he was young and different -- a hipster.
More important, he was the beneficiary of a sea change in television. Over the 16 years from O'Brien's first appearance on late night to his taking over "The Tonight Show," Leno didn't change his nice guy persona and O'Brien didn't get any more comfortable on stage. They remained pretty much the same. It was the culture that changed around them. And that's where demographics came in.
Few people alive today remember that television was once measured, reasonably, by how many people actually watched a particular program. You either had the most viewers or you didn't, and advertisers paid accordingly. The problem with this system was that year in and year out, actually 20 out of 21 years from 1955 through 1976, CBS got the highest ratings. ABC and NBC couldn't make a dent. So ABC, typically mired in third place, devised another strategy. It got the brilliant idea of finding a slice of the audience in which it could compete with CBS -- never mind that the choice was arbitrary. That's how ratings suddenly got divided into demographic segments -- which was like a football team saying that while it lost the game, it outscored its opponent in the third quarter and that ought to count for something. ABC boasted that it got younger viewers than CBS.
All of this is relevant to Leno and O'Brien because of the way ABC and NBC justified this magical and nonsensical confabulation. Younger viewers, they said, were better viewers. They were more susceptible to advertising blandishments. They were more likely to decide on a product and maintain loyalty to it for life. And they were harder to reach and therefore more desirable. Whatever the excuse, the result was that older viewers -- and old meant over 50 -- were suddenly worthless in television terms. Losing Conan O'Brien, should O'Brien have gotten restless and decided to leave NBC when his contract was up, wouldn't have been much of a loss on its face. Even if he had gone to Fox or syndication, there was no way he could have competed against Letterman, much less Leno. He would have been the Irish Arsenio.
But Conan was young and hip; and, astonishingly, he had over the years gotten increasingly favorable reviews and growing cachet, especially as Leno was denigrated by the press for having gone mainstream. O'Brien became a critical darling. Reversing the logic that had prompted it to reject Letterman, NBC apparently concluded that O'Brien was the pompadour of the future. If it lost him, it would lose his cool.
Leno, for all his ratings prowess, was just too square for NBC in the age of the almighty 18-to-34 demographic that everyone now lusted after. In a way, NBC, like an aging suitor, was addled by youth.
There was just one complication. Leno, unlike O'Brien, actually could take his Silent Majority elsewhere, uncool or not. When NBC at the eleventh hour offered Leno the 10 o'clock slot, it wasn't because it expected him to reap great ratings against dramatic shows or even because it wanted cheaper programming. It was a defensive maneuver to keep him from defecting to another network and demolishing O'Brien on "The Tonight Show," its cash cow. NBC didn't really want him, but it didn't want to have to compete against him either.
What NBC didn't seem to have reckoned was just how much its desire to play with the cool kids would cost them -- not in terms of ratings at 10 where it knew Leno would be swamped, but in the weak lead-ins to the local news that sparked an affiliate revolt and in sagging ratings for "The Tonight Show" itself. O'Brien's supporters may think he is the neatest kid in class and that he is therefore entitled to occupy the host's chair, but he is pulling half the ratings Leno got and recently is even down from Leno in the coveted demo. And O'Brien isn't doing any better than Letterman.
In his defense, O'Brien claimed he needed time to build his audience, though detractors could parry that he had 17 years to build an audience. Put less charitably, O'Brien may have been modish, but he wasn't funny.
But this was never about funny -- if it was, neither O'Brien nor Leno would have inherited "The Tonight Show." This was about image. In the great high school of life, NBC opted to follow the siren call of cool. And now, for what may be the first time since 18 to 49 became the American grail, the system has blown up, so much so that NBC was willing to pay O'Brien tens of millions of dollars just to get rid of him and restore Leno to "Tonight."
And that is the real significance of the Leno/O'Brien smackdown. Say what you will about Leno, his return is a cultural milestone.
As O'Brien faded into the evening last night with bundles of cash and newfound martyrdom, the baby boomers have finally gotten some small measure of revenge, however old and dorky and undesirable they may be.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Conan O'Brien ends final NBC's 'Tonight Show'
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/01/24/2010-01-24_conan_obrien_ends_final_tonight_show_with_7_million_viewers_for_nbc__now_he_can_.htmlConan O'Brien ends final NBC's 'Tonight Show' with over 7 million viewers - now he can be edgy again
Richard Huff
Sunday, January 24th 2010
In the last two weeks we've seen Conan O'Brien become himself again.
We saw him stand up to his bosses and win - sort of.
We also saw the guy be funny in ways he wasn't for most of the seven months he hosted "The Tonight Show."
Now that he's free from NBC, he's got to use that same intestinal fortitude - and comic genius - to create his next opportunity.
Armed with a load of cash, and the benefit of time, O'Brien needs to get back to what made him desirable in the first place - edgy comedy targeted at a younger audience.
Not the kind of stuff he did for most of his seven-month run on "Tonight," but what he did for nearly 17 years on NBC's "Late Night."
O'Brien was different at 11:35 p.m. than he was an hour later, and that's a downside to broadcast TV.
"That's the problem you always face," says analyst Bill Carroll of the Katz Media Group. "We want you for who you are and now we make you who we want you to be."
Reaching a mass audience means softening the edges, a bit, which O'Brien did.
"Every comedian dreams of hosting the 'Tonight Show' and, for seven months, I got to," O'Brien said near the end of his last show Friday night. "I did it my way, with people I love, and I do not regret a second."
Viewers, however, may argue that what they saw was somehow different, at least up until the end, when all bets were off - and O'Brien's ratings soared.
And his final show didn't disappoint. It attracted more than 7 million viewers, according to preliminary numbers released by Nielsen, clobbering David Letterman's 2.8 million viewers and Jimmy Kimmel's 1.4 million.
Part of O'Brien's exit talks with NBC centered on who gets the "intellectual property" rights to stuff he and his team created in his run there. One most often mentioned was the Masturbating Bear, a guy in a bear costume who, well, enough said.
The bear was a huge hit with O'Brien's "Late Night" crowd, yet, wasn't used on "Tonight" for the first time until Wednesday, when, frankly, it was too late.
The point is that while he's losing the bear in the $45 million divorce with NBC, O'Brien has a chance to get something bigger back - his sense of humor.
"The networks never really counter-program in late-night," Brad Adgate, a senior vice president at Horizon Media said of O'Brien's options now that he left NBC. "I would offer his 'Late Show' [the next time]. To do something that's exactly what Leno and Letterman are offering, I don't know if that's what viewers want."
Fox officials have said they're interested in O'Brien. And Fox, no doubt, can provide marketing muscle and reach. Anyone doubting that should look at the way Fox promotes "American Idol" to the point that you half-expect Simon Cowell to anchor the news alongside Ernie Anastos.
Going the broadcast route might provide the most money, and audience reach, but that could be a mistake.
O'Brien would be better off going to a cable network where he could push the boundaries of content and further unleash his creative spirit in ways broadcast networks could never provide.
O'Brien appropriately ended his last "Tonight Show" with an all-star rendition of "Freebird," a song that includes the line, "Cause I'm as free as a bird now, and this bird you cannot change."
He had changed on "Tonight." And, in many ways, though he was leaving, in the end it was good to see an old friend emerge in O'Brien - the same one we'd like to see back in the fall.
rhuff@nydailynews.com
Monday, January 18, 2010
Conan O'Brien rebuffs Leno move
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0112/Conan-O-Brien-rebuffs-Leno-move-throws-NBC-late-night-into-chaos
Conan O'Brien rebuffs Leno move, throws NBC late night into chaos
'Tonight Show' host Conan O'Brien said Tuesday he would not move his show back 30 minutes to accommodate 'The Jay Leno Show' at 11:35 p.m., putting NBC on the spot.
By Gloria Goodale Staff writer, Daniel B. Wood Staff writer
January 12, 2010
Los Angeles
Late-night talk-show host Conan O’Brien essentially told NBC Tuesday: Heck no, I won’t go.
Mr. O'Brien's refusal to move his "Tonight Show" to 12:05 p.m. to accommodate Jay Leno's faltering show in the 11:35 p.m. slot is just the latest salvo in what is turning out to be a titanic struggle for NBC.
It is about what to do about plummeting ratings for “The Jay Leno Show” at 10 p.m. It is a bid to help NBC’s many affiliates, whose 11 p.m. newscasts have been losing advertising dollars because of Mr. Leno's dreadful ratings. And, increasingly, it seems to be about the future of late-night television itself.
When 'The Tonight Show' isn't 'The Tonight Show'
In a 552-word statement that opens, “People of Earth,” O’Brien wrote:
“For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting."
Many industry analysts have suggested that time slot is no longer important in the DVR era, but O'Brien said moving “The Tonight Show” to the next day is tantamount to redefining the entire late-night real estate.
Speculation has swirled that Fox has been wooing O’Brien, but executives at Fox denied any such overtures on Monday, and O’Brien himself indicated that he has no plans in the works. NBC declined to comment on O’Brien’s statement or any ongoing negotiations.
Conan O'Brien O'Saurus?
While NBC and its roster of late-night hosts squirm, media analysts are watching the situation to see what impact it might have on television.
To some, the answer is: not much. The viewing preferences of young Americans have already shifted, leaving both Leno and O'Brien behind, says Arthur Gallego, an image and branding consultant at Gallego & Co. Brand Communications.
“Late night talk shows cater to a very fragmented audience, with the younger viewers tuning in later, or opting for shows like 'The Daily Show,' or 'The Colbert Report,' " says Mr. Gallego. “Neither Leno nor O'Brien can match the relevance or wit of either of those programs, and they know it."
"That's what makes this shake-up so high profile," he says. "Leno and Conan were already pop culture dinosaurs, and this only reinforced that.”
Paul Levinson, author of “New New Media," adds: “Conan O’Brien may be taking a noble stand but it’s on a sinking ship."
Drama from a lack of dramas
Yet other commentators suggest that NBCs late-night crisis has emerged precisely because many viewers still do have traditional expectations about their TV schedules, even in the DVR era. Viewers are “still creatures of habit” and expect more substantial content than Leno delivered at 10 o’clock, says DePauw University’s Jeff McCall.
“They like watching late night comedians late at night and not earlier in the evening when they have been programmed for 60 years to see scripted dramas," says Professor McCall. "NBC should have known that breaking this sort of mold was highly risky."
Moreover, neither O’Brien nor Leno performed up to snuff in their new slots for the past six months, says Robert Thompson, a media expert at Syracuse University. But he suggests that the troubles of late-night talk-show hosts are not insignificant.
“These comedians are our cultural commentators, and so they matter in the same way that news anchors do,” says Thompson, adding: “they set a tone for our civic dialogue.”
Conan O'Brien rebuffs Leno move, throws NBC late night into chaos
'Tonight Show' host Conan O'Brien said Tuesday he would not move his show back 30 minutes to accommodate 'The Jay Leno Show' at 11:35 p.m., putting NBC on the spot.
By Gloria Goodale Staff writer, Daniel B. Wood Staff writer
January 12, 2010
Los Angeles
Late-night talk-show host Conan O’Brien essentially told NBC Tuesday: Heck no, I won’t go.
Mr. O'Brien's refusal to move his "Tonight Show" to 12:05 p.m. to accommodate Jay Leno's faltering show in the 11:35 p.m. slot is just the latest salvo in what is turning out to be a titanic struggle for NBC.
It is about what to do about plummeting ratings for “The Jay Leno Show” at 10 p.m. It is a bid to help NBC’s many affiliates, whose 11 p.m. newscasts have been losing advertising dollars because of Mr. Leno's dreadful ratings. And, increasingly, it seems to be about the future of late-night television itself.
When 'The Tonight Show' isn't 'The Tonight Show'
In a 552-word statement that opens, “People of Earth,” O’Brien wrote:
“For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting."
Many industry analysts have suggested that time slot is no longer important in the DVR era, but O'Brien said moving “The Tonight Show” to the next day is tantamount to redefining the entire late-night real estate.
Speculation has swirled that Fox has been wooing O’Brien, but executives at Fox denied any such overtures on Monday, and O’Brien himself indicated that he has no plans in the works. NBC declined to comment on O’Brien’s statement or any ongoing negotiations.
Conan O'Brien O'Saurus?
While NBC and its roster of late-night hosts squirm, media analysts are watching the situation to see what impact it might have on television.
To some, the answer is: not much. The viewing preferences of young Americans have already shifted, leaving both Leno and O'Brien behind, says Arthur Gallego, an image and branding consultant at Gallego & Co. Brand Communications.
“Late night talk shows cater to a very fragmented audience, with the younger viewers tuning in later, or opting for shows like 'The Daily Show,' or 'The Colbert Report,' " says Mr. Gallego. “Neither Leno nor O'Brien can match the relevance or wit of either of those programs, and they know it."
"That's what makes this shake-up so high profile," he says. "Leno and Conan were already pop culture dinosaurs, and this only reinforced that.”
Paul Levinson, author of “New New Media," adds: “Conan O’Brien may be taking a noble stand but it’s on a sinking ship."
Drama from a lack of dramas
Yet other commentators suggest that NBCs late-night crisis has emerged precisely because many viewers still do have traditional expectations about their TV schedules, even in the DVR era. Viewers are “still creatures of habit” and expect more substantial content than Leno delivered at 10 o’clock, says DePauw University’s Jeff McCall.
“They like watching late night comedians late at night and not earlier in the evening when they have been programmed for 60 years to see scripted dramas," says Professor McCall. "NBC should have known that breaking this sort of mold was highly risky."
Moreover, neither O’Brien nor Leno performed up to snuff in their new slots for the past six months, says Robert Thompson, a media expert at Syracuse University. But he suggests that the troubles of late-night talk-show hosts are not insignificant.
“These comedians are our cultural commentators, and so they matter in the same way that news anchors do,” says Thompson, adding: “they set a tone for our civic dialogue.”
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Jay Leno time shuffle worst programming blunder
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/01/09/2010-01-09_the_making_of_nbc_tonight_horror_show.htmlNBC's Jay Leno time shuffle will be worst programming blunder in TV history
David Hinckley
Saturday, January 9th 2010
If NBC moves Jay Leno's 10 p.m. show to 11:35, it could be the network's biggest mistake in TV programming history.
If NBC's Jay Leno Shuffle isn't the worst programming blunder in TV history, it might be the most embarrassing.
Assuming NBC does indeed end Leno's 10 p.m. show and return him to 11:35, that's a jumbo-size, extra-cream pie square in the face of a network that over the last few years hasn't gotten much of anything right.
Moreover, while NBC has had some bad luck in that stretch, this pie is 100% self-delivered.
For months last year, NBC confidently declared that moving Leno to 10, and wiping out all scripted drama in that prime-time hour, was not foolhardy but visionary.
It would give NBC cheaper, proven alternative prime-time programming, network executives said. Bumping Conan O'Brien into Leno's old 11:35 p.m. "Tonight" slot would bring a new generation of hip, young folks to NBC.
It was sold as a win-win, and NBC did everything short of asserting that rival network execs who laughed at this plan were just jealous they hadn't thought of it first.
To be fair, on paper it didn't necessarily look like the worst idea ever. It's just that on paper, NBC wasn't counting on Leno averaging 29% fewer viewers than last season, which was pretty anemic itself.
NBC wasn't counting on its affiliates getting rebellious over having a much smaller pool of viewers delivered to the late-night local newscasts.
Finally, NBC wasn't counting on Conan losing 2 million of Leno's viewers, wiping out the lead Leno held for years over CBS' David Letterman.
Yet as late as this week, NBC valiantly insisted the center was holding.
The network had only promised advertisers a little over 5 million viewers a night, and Leno was delivering that.
So even though an Ad Age survey showed that spots on Leno's show were going for $54,000 - about half what the network charged last year for the dreadful, quickly canceled drama "My Own Worst Enemy" - NBC made money because Leno's show was so much cheaper to produce.
Now even NBC seems to be admitting that wasn't enough.
Leno, interestingly, is the least damaged party here. His audience is intact and he'll land somewhere comfortable. It will be a harder landing for Conan because he's now tarnished goods, a cult hero who tanked when he got closer to prime time.
NBC, meanwhile, has to glue Humpty Dumpty back together, hoping Leno can rehook his old late-night viewers while it figures out what to do with five vacant hours of prime time.
A number of dominoes led to The Leno Shuffle, starting way back with NBC's fear that Conan would follow Letterman and leave if he didn't get a more prominent spot.
The last clinching domino, however, was NBC looking at its 10 p.m. schedule last year and saying, "Hey, why not put Leno there? How could things get worse?" Now we know.
dhinckley@nydailynews.com
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
My Beef With Big Media
Thanks to Checking for Elves ( http://checkingforelves.blogspot.com ) for forwarding the following...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html
My Beef With Big Media
How government protects big media--and shuts out upstarts like me.
By Ted Turner
In the late 1960s, when Turner Communications was a business of billboards and radio stations and I was spending much of my energy ocean racing, a UHF-TV station came up for sale in Atlanta. It was losing $50,000 a month and its programs were viewed by fewer than 5 percent of the market.
I acquired it.
When I moved to buy a second station in Charlotte--this one worse than the first--my accountant quit in protest, and the company's board vetoed the deal. So I mortgaged my house and bought it myself. The Atlanta purchase turned into the Superstation; the Charlotte purchase--when I sold it 10 years later--gave me the capital to launch CNN.
Both purchases played a role in revolutionizing television. Both required a streak of independence and a taste for risk. And neither could happen today. In the current climate of consolidation, independent broadcasters simply don't survive for long. That's why we haven't seen a new generation of people like me or even Rupert Murdoch--independent television upstarts who challenge the big boys and force the whole industry to compete and change.
It's not that there aren't entrepreneurs eager to make their names and fortunes in broadcasting if given the chance. If nothing else, the 1990s dot-com boom showed that the spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well in America, with plenty of investors willing to put real money into new media ventures. The difference is that Washington has changed the rules of the game. When I was getting into the television business, lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took seriously the commission's mandate to promote diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace. They wanted to make sure that the big, established networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--wouldn't forever dominate what the American public could watch on TV. They wanted independent producers to thrive. They wanted more people to be able to own TV stations. They believed in the value of competition.
So when the FCC received a glut of applications for new television stations after World War II, the agency set aside dozens of channels on the new UHF spectrum so independents could get a foothold in television. That helped me get my start 35 years ago. Congress also passed a law in 1962 requiring that TVs be equipped to receive both UHF and VHF channels. That's how I was able to compete as a UHF station, although it was never easy. (I used to tell potential advertisers that our UHF viewers were smarter than the rest, because you had to be a genius just to figure out how to tune us in.) And in 1972, the FCC ruled that cable TV operators could import distant signals. That's how we were able to beam our Atlanta station to homes throughout the South. Five years later, with the help of an RCA satellite, we were sending our signal across the nation, and the Superstation was born.
That was then.
Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.
In this environment, most independent media firms either get gobbled up by one of the big companies or driven out of business altogether. Yet instead of balancing the rules to give independent broadcasters a fair chance in the market, Washington continues to tilt the playing field to favor the biggest players. Last summer, the FCC passed another round of sweeping pro-consolidation rules that, among other things, further raised the cap on the number of TV stations a company can own.
In the media, as in any industry, big corporations play a vital role, but so do small, emerging ones. When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big guys--they have to innovate, so they're less obsessed with earnings than they are with ideas. They are quicker to seize on new technologies and new product ideas. They steal market share from the big companies, spurring them to adopt new approaches. This process promotes competition, which leads to higher product and service quality, more jobs, and greater wealth. It's called capitalism.
But without the proper rules, healthy capitalist markets turn into sluggish oligopolies, and that is what's happening in media today. Large corporations are more profit-focused and risk-averse. They often kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap--even if their decisions run counter to local interests and community values. Their managers are more averse to innovation because they're afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, waiting to buy the businesses of the risk-takers who succeed.
Unless we have a climate that will allow more independent media companies to survive, a dangerously high percentage of what we see--and what we don't see--will be shaped by the profit motives and political interests of large, publicly traded conglomerates. The economy will suffer, and so will the quality of our public life. Let me be clear: As a business proposition, consolidation makes sense. The moguls behind the mergers are acting in their corporate interests and playing by the rules. We just shouldn't have those rules. They make sense for a corporation. But for a society, it's like over-fishing the oceans. When the independent businesses are gone, where will the new ideas come from? We have to do more than keep media giants from growing larger; they're already too big. We need a new set of rules that will break these huge companies to pieces.
The big squeeze
In the 1970s, I became convinced that a 24-hour all-news network could make money, and perhaps even change the world. But when I invited two large media corporations to invest in the launch of CNN, they turned me down. I couldn't believe it. Together we could have launched the network for a fraction of what it would have taken me alone; they had all the infrastructure, contacts, experience, knowledge. When no one would go in with me, I risked my personal wealth to start CNN.
Soon after our launch in 1980, our expenses were twice what we had expected and revenues half what we had projected. Our losses were so high that our loans were called in. I refinanced at 18 percent interest, up from 9, and stayed just a step ahead of the bankers. Eventually, we not only became profitable, but also changed the nature of news--from watching something that happened to watching it as it happened.
But even as CNN was getting its start, the climate for independent broadcasting was turning hostile. This trend began in 1984, when the FCC raised the number of stations a single entity could own from seven--where it had been capped since the 1950s--to 12. A year later, it revised its rule again, adding a national audience-reach cap of 25 percent to the 12 station limit--meaning media companies were prohibited from owning TV stations that together reached more than 25 percent of the national audience. In 1996, the FCC did away with numerical caps altogether and raised the audience-reach cap to 35 percent. This wasn't necessarily bad for Turner Broadcasting; we had already achieved scale. But seeing these rules changed was like watching someone knock down the ladder I had already climbed.
Meanwhile, the forces of consolidation focused their attention on another rule, one that restricted ownership of content. Throughout the 1980s, network lobbyists worked to overturn the so-called Financial Interest and Syndication Rules, or fin-syn, which had been put in place in 1970, after federal officials became alarmed at the networks' growing control over programming. As the FCC wrote in the fin-syn decision: "The power to determine form and content rests only in the three networks and is exercised extensively and exclusively by them, hourly and daily." In 1957, the commission pointed out, independent companies had produced a third of all network shows; by 1968, that number had dropped to 4 percent. The rules essentially forbade networks from profiting from reselling programs that they had already aired.
This had the result of forcing networks to sell off their syndication arms, as CBS did with Viacom in 1973. Once networks no longer produced their own content, new competition was launched, creating fresh opportunities for independents.
For a time, Hollywood and its production studios were politically strong enough to keep the fin-syn rules in place. But by the early 1990s, the networks began arguing that their dominance had been undercut by the rise of independent broadcasters, cable networks, and even videocassettes, which they claimed gave viewers enough choice to make fin-syn unnecessary. The FCC ultimately agreed--and suddenly the broadcast networks could tell independent production studios, "We won't air it unless we own it." The networks then bought up the weakened studios or were bought out by their own syndication arms, the way Viacom turned the tables on CBS, buying the network in 2000. This silenced the major political opponents of consolidation.
Even before the repeal of fin-syn, I could see that the trend toward consolidation spelled trouble for independents like me. In a climate of consolidation, there would be only one sure way to win: bring a broadcast network, production studios, and cable and satellite systems under one roof. If you didn't have it inside, you'd have to get it outside--and that meant, increasingly, from a large corporation that was competing with you. It's difficult to survive when your suppliers are owned by your competitors. I had tried and failed to buy a major broadcast network, but the repeal of fin-syn turned up the pressure. Since I couldn't buy a network, I bought MGM to bring more content in-house, and I kept looking for other ways to gain scale. In the end, I found the only way to stay competitive was to merge with Time Warner and relinquish control of my companies.
Today, the only way for media companies to survive is to own everything up and down the media chain--from broadcast and cable networks to the sitcoms, movies, and news broadcasts you see on those stations; to the production studios that make them; to the cable, satellite, and broadcast systems that bring the programs to your television set; to the Web sites you visit to read about those programs; to the way you log on to the Internet to view those pages. Big media today wants to own the faucet, pipeline, water, and the reservoir. The rain clouds come next.
Supersizing networks
Throughout the 1990s, media mergers were celebrated in the press and otherwise seemingly ignored by the American public. So, it was easy to assume that media consolidation was neither controversial nor problematic. But then a funny thing happened.
In the summer of 2003, the FCC raised the national audience-reach cap from 35 percent to 45 percent. The FCC also allowed corporations to own a newspaper and a TV station in the same market and permitted corporations to own three TV stations in the largest markets, up from two, and two stations in medium-sized markets, up from one. Unexpectedly, the public rebelled. Hundreds of thousands of citizens complained to the FCC. Groups from the National Organization for Women to the National Rifle Association demanded that Congress reverse the ruling. And like-minded lawmakers, including many long-time opponents of media consolidation, took action, pushing the cap back down to 35, until--under strong White House pressure--it was revised back up to 39 percent. This June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit threw out the rules that would have allowed corporations to own more television and radio stations in a single market, let stand the higher 39 percent cap, and also upheld the rule permitting a corporation to own a TV station and a newspaper in the same market; then, it sent the issues back to the same FCC that had pushed through the pro-consolidation rules in the first place.
In reaching its 2003 decision, the FCC did not argue that its policies would advance its core objectives of diversity, competition, and localism. Instead, it justified its decision by saying that there was already a lot of diversity, competition, and localism in the media--so it wouldn't hurt if the rules were changed to allow more consolidation. Their decision reads: "Our current rules inadequately account for the competitive presence of cable, ignore the diversity-enhancing value of the Internet, and lack any sound bases for a national audience reach cap." Let's pick that assertion apart.
First, the "competitive presence of cable" is a mirage. Broadcast networks have for years pointed to their loss of prime-time viewers to cable networks--but they are losing viewers to cable networks that they themselves own. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable TV stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. Yes, Disney's ABC network has lost viewers to cable networks. But it's losing viewers to cable networks like Disney's ESPN, Disney's ESPN2, and Disney's Disney Channel. The media giants are getting a deal from Congress and the FCC because their broadcast networks are losing share to their own cable networks. It's a scam.
Second, the decision cites the "diversity-enhancing value of the Internet." The FCC is confusing diversity with variety. The top 20 Internet news sites are owned by the same media conglomerates that control the broadcast and cable networks. Sure, a hundred-person choir gives you a choice of voices, but they're all singing the same song.
The FCC says that we have more media choices than ever before. But only a few corporations decide what we can choose. That is not choice. That's like a dictator deciding what candidates are allowed to stand for parliamentary elections, and then claiming that the people choose their leaders. Different voices do not mean different viewpoints, and these huge corporations all have the same viewpoint--they want to shape government policy in a way that helps them maximize profits, drive out competition, and keep getting bigger.
Because the new technologies have not fundamentally changed the market, it's wrong for the FCC to say that there are no "sound bases for a national audience-reach cap." The rationale for such a cap is the same as it has always been. If there is a limit to the number of TV stations a corporation can own, then the chance exists that after all the corporations have reached this limit, there may still be some stations left over to be bought and run by independents. A lower limit would encourage the entry of independents and promote competition. A higher limit does the opposite.
Triple blight
The loss of independent operators hurts both the media business and its citizen-customers. When the ownership of these firms passes to people under pressure to show quick financial results in order to justify the purchase, the corporate emphasis instantly shifts from taking risks to taking profits. When that happens, quality suffers, localism suffers, and democracy itself suffers.
Loss of Quality
The Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans exerts a negative influence on society, because it discourages people who want to climb up the list from giving more money to charity. The Nielsen ratings are dangerous in a similar way--because they scare companies away from good shows that don't produce immediate blockbuster ratings. The producer Norman Lear once asked, "You know what ruined television?" His answer: when The New York Times began publishing the Nielsen ratings. "That list every week became all anyone cared about."
When all companies are quarterly earnings-obsessed, the market starts punishing companies that aren't yielding an instant return. This not only creates a big incentive for bogus accounting, but also it inhibits the kind of investment that builds economic value. America used to know this. We used to be a nation of farmers. You can't plant something today and harvest tomorrow. Had Turner Communications been required to show earnings growth every quarter, we never would have purchased those first two TV stations.
When CNN reported to me, if we needed more money for Kosovo or Baghdad, we'd find it. If we had to bust the budget, we busted the budget. We put journalism first, and that's how we built CNN into something the world wanted to watch. I had the power to make these budget decisions because they were my companies. I was an independent entrepreneur who controlled the majority of the votes and could run my company for the long term. Top managers in these huge media conglomerates run their companies for the short term. After we sold Turner Broadcasting to Time Warner, we came under such earnings pressure that we had to cut our promotion budget every year at CNN to make our numbers. Media mega-mergers inevitably lead to an overemphasis on short-term earnings.
You can see this overemphasis in the spread of reality television. Shows like "Fear Factor" cost little to produce--there are no actors to pay and no sets to maintain--and they get big ratings. Thus, American television has moved away from expensive sitcoms and on to cheap thrills. We've gone from "Father Knows Best" to "Who Wants to Marry My Dad?", and from "My Three Sons" to "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance."
The story of Grant Tinker and Mary Tyler Moore's production studio, MTM, helps illustrate the point. When the company was founded in 1969, Tinker and Moore hired the best writers they could find and then left them alone--and were rewarded with some of the best shows of the 1970s. But eventually, MTM was bought by a company that imposed budget ceilings and laid off employees. That company was later purchased by Rev. Pat Robertson; then, he was bought out by Fox. Exit "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Enter "The Littlest Groom."
Loss of localism
Consolidation has also meant a decline in the local focus of both news and programming. After analyzing 23,000 stories on 172 news programs over five years, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that big media news organizations relied more on syndicated feeds and were more likely to air national stories with no local connection.
That's not surprising. Local coverage is expensive, and thus will tend be a casualty in the quest for short-term earnings. In 2002, Fox Television bought Chicago's Channel 50 and eliminated all of the station's locally produced shows. One of the cancelled programs (which targeted pre-teens) had scored a perfect rating for educational content in a 1999 University of Pennsylvania study, according to The Chicago Tribune. That accolade wasn't enough to save the program. Once the station's ownership changed, so did its mission and programming.
Loss of localism also undercuts the public-service mission of the media, and this can have dangerous consequences. In early 2002, when a freight train derailed near Minot, N.D., releasing a cloud of anhydrous ammonia over the town, police tried to call local radio stations, six of which are owned by radio mammoth Clear Channel Communications. According to news reports, it took them over an hour to reach anyone--no one was answering the Clear Channel phone. By the next day, 300 people had been hospitalized, many partially blinded by the ammonia. Pets and livestock died. And Clear Channel continued beaming its signal from headquarters in San Antonio, Texas--some 1,600 miles away.
Loss of democratic debate
When media companies dominate their markets, it undercuts our democracy. Justice Hugo Black, in a landmark media-ownership case in 1945, wrote: "The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
These big companies are not antagonistic; they do billions of dollars in business with each other. They don't compete; they cooperate to inhibit competition. You and I have both felt the impact. I felt it in 1981, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all came together to try to keep CNN from covering the White House. You've felt the impact over the past two years, as you saw little news from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox, or CNN on the FCC's actions. In early 2003, the Pew Research Center found that 72 percent of Americans had heard "nothing at all" about the proposed FCC rule changes. Why? One never knows for sure, but it must have been clear to news directors that the more they covered this issue, the harder it would be for their corporate bosses to get the policy result they wanted.
A few media conglomerates now exercise a near-monopoly over television news. There is always a risk that news organizations can emphasize or ignore stories to serve their corporate purpose. But the risk is far greater when there are no independent competitors to air the side of the story the corporation wants to ignore.
More consolidation has often meant more news-sharing. But closing bureaus and downsizing staff have more than economic consequences. A smaller press is less capable of holding our leaders accountable. When Viacom merged two news stations it owned in Los Angeles, reports The American Journalism Review, "field reporters began carrying microphones labeled KCBS on one side and KCAL on the other." This was no accident. As the Viacom executive in charge told The Los Angeles Business Journal: "In this duopoly, we should be able to control the news in the marketplace."
This ability to control the news is especially worrisome when a large media organization is itself the subject of a news story. Disney's boss, after buying ABC in 1995, was quoted in LA Weekly as saying, "I would prefer ABC not cover Disney." A few days later, ABC killed a "20/20" story critical of the parent company.
But networks have also been compromised when it comes to non-news programs which involve their corporate parent's business interests. General Electric subsidiary NBC Sports raised eyebrows by apologizing to the Chinese government for Bob Costas's reference to China's "problems with human rights" during a telecast of the Atlanta Olympic Games. China, of course, is a huge market for GE products.
Consolidation has given big media companies new power over what is said not just on the air, but off it as well. Cumulus Media banned the Dixie Chicks on its 42 country music stations for 30 days after lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush for the war in Iraq. It's hard to imagine Cumulus would have been so bold if its listeners had more of a choice in country music stations. And Disney recently provoked an uproar when it prevented its subsidiary Miramax from distributing Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. As a senior Disney executive told The New York Times: "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Follow the logic, and you can see what lies ahead: If the only media companies are major corporations, controversial and dissenting views may not be aired at all.
Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech. But it's not their intentions that matter; it's their capabilities. Consolidation gives them more power to tilt the news and cut important ideas out of the public debate. And it's precisely that power that the rules should prevent.
Independents' day
This is a fight about freedom--the freedom of independent entrepreneurs to start and run a media business, and the freedom of citizens to get news, information, and entertainment from a wide variety of sources, at least some of which are truly independent and not run by people facing the pressure of quarterly earnings reports. No one should underestimate the danger. Big media companies want to eliminate all ownership limits. With the removal of these limits, immense media power will pass into the hands of a very few corporations and individuals.
What will programming be like when it's produced for no other purpose than profit? What will news be like when there are no independent news organizations to go after stories the big corporations avoid? Who really wants to find out? Safeguarding the welfare of the public cannot be the first concern of a large publicly traded media company. Its job is to seek profits. But if the government writes the rules in a way that encourages the entry into the market of entrepreneurs--men and women with big dreams, new ideas, and a willingness to take long-term risks--the economy will be stronger, and the country will be better off.
I freely admit: When I was in the media business, especially after the federal government changed the rules to favor large companies, I tried to sweep the board, and I came within one move of owning every link up and down the media chain. Yet I felt then, as I do now, that the government was not doing its job. The role of the government ought to be like the role of a referee in boxing, keeping the big guys from killing the little guys. If the little guy gets knocked down, the referee should send the big guy to his corner, count the little guy out, and then help him back up. But today the government has cast down its duty, and media competition is less like boxing and more like professional wrestling: The wrestler and the referee are both kicking the guy on the canvas.
At this late stage, media companies have grown so large and powerful, and their dominance has become so detrimental to the survival of small, emerging companies, that there remains only one alternative: bust up the big conglomerates. We've done this before: to the railroad trusts in the first part of the 20th century, to Ma Bell more recently. Indeed, big media itself was cut down to size in the 1970s, and a period of staggering innovation and growth followed. Breaking up the reconstituted media conglomerates may seem like an impossible task when their grip on the policy-making process in Washington seems so sure. But the public's broad and bipartisan rebellion against the FCC's pro-consolidation decisions suggests something different. Politically, big media may again be on the wrong side of history--and up against a country unwilling to lose its independents.
Ted Turner is founder of CNN and chairman of Turner Enterprises. www.tedturner.com
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html
My Beef With Big Media
How government protects big media--and shuts out upstarts like me.
By Ted Turner
In the late 1960s, when Turner Communications was a business of billboards and radio stations and I was spending much of my energy ocean racing, a UHF-TV station came up for sale in Atlanta. It was losing $50,000 a month and its programs were viewed by fewer than 5 percent of the market.
I acquired it.
When I moved to buy a second station in Charlotte--this one worse than the first--my accountant quit in protest, and the company's board vetoed the deal. So I mortgaged my house and bought it myself. The Atlanta purchase turned into the Superstation; the Charlotte purchase--when I sold it 10 years later--gave me the capital to launch CNN.
Both purchases played a role in revolutionizing television. Both required a streak of independence and a taste for risk. And neither could happen today. In the current climate of consolidation, independent broadcasters simply don't survive for long. That's why we haven't seen a new generation of people like me or even Rupert Murdoch--independent television upstarts who challenge the big boys and force the whole industry to compete and change.
It's not that there aren't entrepreneurs eager to make their names and fortunes in broadcasting if given the chance. If nothing else, the 1990s dot-com boom showed that the spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well in America, with plenty of investors willing to put real money into new media ventures. The difference is that Washington has changed the rules of the game. When I was getting into the television business, lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took seriously the commission's mandate to promote diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace. They wanted to make sure that the big, established networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--wouldn't forever dominate what the American public could watch on TV. They wanted independent producers to thrive. They wanted more people to be able to own TV stations. They believed in the value of competition.
So when the FCC received a glut of applications for new television stations after World War II, the agency set aside dozens of channels on the new UHF spectrum so independents could get a foothold in television. That helped me get my start 35 years ago. Congress also passed a law in 1962 requiring that TVs be equipped to receive both UHF and VHF channels. That's how I was able to compete as a UHF station, although it was never easy. (I used to tell potential advertisers that our UHF viewers were smarter than the rest, because you had to be a genius just to figure out how to tune us in.) And in 1972, the FCC ruled that cable TV operators could import distant signals. That's how we were able to beam our Atlanta station to homes throughout the South. Five years later, with the help of an RCA satellite, we were sending our signal across the nation, and the Superstation was born.
That was then.
Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.
In this environment, most independent media firms either get gobbled up by one of the big companies or driven out of business altogether. Yet instead of balancing the rules to give independent broadcasters a fair chance in the market, Washington continues to tilt the playing field to favor the biggest players. Last summer, the FCC passed another round of sweeping pro-consolidation rules that, among other things, further raised the cap on the number of TV stations a company can own.
In the media, as in any industry, big corporations play a vital role, but so do small, emerging ones. When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big guys--they have to innovate, so they're less obsessed with earnings than they are with ideas. They are quicker to seize on new technologies and new product ideas. They steal market share from the big companies, spurring them to adopt new approaches. This process promotes competition, which leads to higher product and service quality, more jobs, and greater wealth. It's called capitalism.
But without the proper rules, healthy capitalist markets turn into sluggish oligopolies, and that is what's happening in media today. Large corporations are more profit-focused and risk-averse. They often kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap--even if their decisions run counter to local interests and community values. Their managers are more averse to innovation because they're afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, waiting to buy the businesses of the risk-takers who succeed.
Unless we have a climate that will allow more independent media companies to survive, a dangerously high percentage of what we see--and what we don't see--will be shaped by the profit motives and political interests of large, publicly traded conglomerates. The economy will suffer, and so will the quality of our public life. Let me be clear: As a business proposition, consolidation makes sense. The moguls behind the mergers are acting in their corporate interests and playing by the rules. We just shouldn't have those rules. They make sense for a corporation. But for a society, it's like over-fishing the oceans. When the independent businesses are gone, where will the new ideas come from? We have to do more than keep media giants from growing larger; they're already too big. We need a new set of rules that will break these huge companies to pieces.
The big squeeze
In the 1970s, I became convinced that a 24-hour all-news network could make money, and perhaps even change the world. But when I invited two large media corporations to invest in the launch of CNN, they turned me down. I couldn't believe it. Together we could have launched the network for a fraction of what it would have taken me alone; they had all the infrastructure, contacts, experience, knowledge. When no one would go in with me, I risked my personal wealth to start CNN.
Soon after our launch in 1980, our expenses were twice what we had expected and revenues half what we had projected. Our losses were so high that our loans were called in. I refinanced at 18 percent interest, up from 9, and stayed just a step ahead of the bankers. Eventually, we not only became profitable, but also changed the nature of news--from watching something that happened to watching it as it happened.
But even as CNN was getting its start, the climate for independent broadcasting was turning hostile. This trend began in 1984, when the FCC raised the number of stations a single entity could own from seven--where it had been capped since the 1950s--to 12. A year later, it revised its rule again, adding a national audience-reach cap of 25 percent to the 12 station limit--meaning media companies were prohibited from owning TV stations that together reached more than 25 percent of the national audience. In 1996, the FCC did away with numerical caps altogether and raised the audience-reach cap to 35 percent. This wasn't necessarily bad for Turner Broadcasting; we had already achieved scale. But seeing these rules changed was like watching someone knock down the ladder I had already climbed.
Meanwhile, the forces of consolidation focused their attention on another rule, one that restricted ownership of content. Throughout the 1980s, network lobbyists worked to overturn the so-called Financial Interest and Syndication Rules, or fin-syn, which had been put in place in 1970, after federal officials became alarmed at the networks' growing control over programming. As the FCC wrote in the fin-syn decision: "The power to determine form and content rests only in the three networks and is exercised extensively and exclusively by them, hourly and daily." In 1957, the commission pointed out, independent companies had produced a third of all network shows; by 1968, that number had dropped to 4 percent. The rules essentially forbade networks from profiting from reselling programs that they had already aired.
This had the result of forcing networks to sell off their syndication arms, as CBS did with Viacom in 1973. Once networks no longer produced their own content, new competition was launched, creating fresh opportunities for independents.
For a time, Hollywood and its production studios were politically strong enough to keep the fin-syn rules in place. But by the early 1990s, the networks began arguing that their dominance had been undercut by the rise of independent broadcasters, cable networks, and even videocassettes, which they claimed gave viewers enough choice to make fin-syn unnecessary. The FCC ultimately agreed--and suddenly the broadcast networks could tell independent production studios, "We won't air it unless we own it." The networks then bought up the weakened studios or were bought out by their own syndication arms, the way Viacom turned the tables on CBS, buying the network in 2000. This silenced the major political opponents of consolidation.
Even before the repeal of fin-syn, I could see that the trend toward consolidation spelled trouble for independents like me. In a climate of consolidation, there would be only one sure way to win: bring a broadcast network, production studios, and cable and satellite systems under one roof. If you didn't have it inside, you'd have to get it outside--and that meant, increasingly, from a large corporation that was competing with you. It's difficult to survive when your suppliers are owned by your competitors. I had tried and failed to buy a major broadcast network, but the repeal of fin-syn turned up the pressure. Since I couldn't buy a network, I bought MGM to bring more content in-house, and I kept looking for other ways to gain scale. In the end, I found the only way to stay competitive was to merge with Time Warner and relinquish control of my companies.
Today, the only way for media companies to survive is to own everything up and down the media chain--from broadcast and cable networks to the sitcoms, movies, and news broadcasts you see on those stations; to the production studios that make them; to the cable, satellite, and broadcast systems that bring the programs to your television set; to the Web sites you visit to read about those programs; to the way you log on to the Internet to view those pages. Big media today wants to own the faucet, pipeline, water, and the reservoir. The rain clouds come next.
Supersizing networks
Throughout the 1990s, media mergers were celebrated in the press and otherwise seemingly ignored by the American public. So, it was easy to assume that media consolidation was neither controversial nor problematic. But then a funny thing happened.
In the summer of 2003, the FCC raised the national audience-reach cap from 35 percent to 45 percent. The FCC also allowed corporations to own a newspaper and a TV station in the same market and permitted corporations to own three TV stations in the largest markets, up from two, and two stations in medium-sized markets, up from one. Unexpectedly, the public rebelled. Hundreds of thousands of citizens complained to the FCC. Groups from the National Organization for Women to the National Rifle Association demanded that Congress reverse the ruling. And like-minded lawmakers, including many long-time opponents of media consolidation, took action, pushing the cap back down to 35, until--under strong White House pressure--it was revised back up to 39 percent. This June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit threw out the rules that would have allowed corporations to own more television and radio stations in a single market, let stand the higher 39 percent cap, and also upheld the rule permitting a corporation to own a TV station and a newspaper in the same market; then, it sent the issues back to the same FCC that had pushed through the pro-consolidation rules in the first place.
In reaching its 2003 decision, the FCC did not argue that its policies would advance its core objectives of diversity, competition, and localism. Instead, it justified its decision by saying that there was already a lot of diversity, competition, and localism in the media--so it wouldn't hurt if the rules were changed to allow more consolidation. Their decision reads: "Our current rules inadequately account for the competitive presence of cable, ignore the diversity-enhancing value of the Internet, and lack any sound bases for a national audience reach cap." Let's pick that assertion apart.
First, the "competitive presence of cable" is a mirage. Broadcast networks have for years pointed to their loss of prime-time viewers to cable networks--but they are losing viewers to cable networks that they themselves own. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable TV stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks. Yes, Disney's ABC network has lost viewers to cable networks. But it's losing viewers to cable networks like Disney's ESPN, Disney's ESPN2, and Disney's Disney Channel. The media giants are getting a deal from Congress and the FCC because their broadcast networks are losing share to their own cable networks. It's a scam.
Second, the decision cites the "diversity-enhancing value of the Internet." The FCC is confusing diversity with variety. The top 20 Internet news sites are owned by the same media conglomerates that control the broadcast and cable networks. Sure, a hundred-person choir gives you a choice of voices, but they're all singing the same song.
The FCC says that we have more media choices than ever before. But only a few corporations decide what we can choose. That is not choice. That's like a dictator deciding what candidates are allowed to stand for parliamentary elections, and then claiming that the people choose their leaders. Different voices do not mean different viewpoints, and these huge corporations all have the same viewpoint--they want to shape government policy in a way that helps them maximize profits, drive out competition, and keep getting bigger.
Because the new technologies have not fundamentally changed the market, it's wrong for the FCC to say that there are no "sound bases for a national audience-reach cap." The rationale for such a cap is the same as it has always been. If there is a limit to the number of TV stations a corporation can own, then the chance exists that after all the corporations have reached this limit, there may still be some stations left over to be bought and run by independents. A lower limit would encourage the entry of independents and promote competition. A higher limit does the opposite.
Triple blight
The loss of independent operators hurts both the media business and its citizen-customers. When the ownership of these firms passes to people under pressure to show quick financial results in order to justify the purchase, the corporate emphasis instantly shifts from taking risks to taking profits. When that happens, quality suffers, localism suffers, and democracy itself suffers.
Loss of Quality
The Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans exerts a negative influence on society, because it discourages people who want to climb up the list from giving more money to charity. The Nielsen ratings are dangerous in a similar way--because they scare companies away from good shows that don't produce immediate blockbuster ratings. The producer Norman Lear once asked, "You know what ruined television?" His answer: when The New York Times began publishing the Nielsen ratings. "That list every week became all anyone cared about."
When all companies are quarterly earnings-obsessed, the market starts punishing companies that aren't yielding an instant return. This not only creates a big incentive for bogus accounting, but also it inhibits the kind of investment that builds economic value. America used to know this. We used to be a nation of farmers. You can't plant something today and harvest tomorrow. Had Turner Communications been required to show earnings growth every quarter, we never would have purchased those first two TV stations.
When CNN reported to me, if we needed more money for Kosovo or Baghdad, we'd find it. If we had to bust the budget, we busted the budget. We put journalism first, and that's how we built CNN into something the world wanted to watch. I had the power to make these budget decisions because they were my companies. I was an independent entrepreneur who controlled the majority of the votes and could run my company for the long term. Top managers in these huge media conglomerates run their companies for the short term. After we sold Turner Broadcasting to Time Warner, we came under such earnings pressure that we had to cut our promotion budget every year at CNN to make our numbers. Media mega-mergers inevitably lead to an overemphasis on short-term earnings.
You can see this overemphasis in the spread of reality television. Shows like "Fear Factor" cost little to produce--there are no actors to pay and no sets to maintain--and they get big ratings. Thus, American television has moved away from expensive sitcoms and on to cheap thrills. We've gone from "Father Knows Best" to "Who Wants to Marry My Dad?", and from "My Three Sons" to "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance."
The story of Grant Tinker and Mary Tyler Moore's production studio, MTM, helps illustrate the point. When the company was founded in 1969, Tinker and Moore hired the best writers they could find and then left them alone--and were rewarded with some of the best shows of the 1970s. But eventually, MTM was bought by a company that imposed budget ceilings and laid off employees. That company was later purchased by Rev. Pat Robertson; then, he was bought out by Fox. Exit "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Enter "The Littlest Groom."
Loss of localism
Consolidation has also meant a decline in the local focus of both news and programming. After analyzing 23,000 stories on 172 news programs over five years, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that big media news organizations relied more on syndicated feeds and were more likely to air national stories with no local connection.
That's not surprising. Local coverage is expensive, and thus will tend be a casualty in the quest for short-term earnings. In 2002, Fox Television bought Chicago's Channel 50 and eliminated all of the station's locally produced shows. One of the cancelled programs (which targeted pre-teens) had scored a perfect rating for educational content in a 1999 University of Pennsylvania study, according to The Chicago Tribune. That accolade wasn't enough to save the program. Once the station's ownership changed, so did its mission and programming.
Loss of localism also undercuts the public-service mission of the media, and this can have dangerous consequences. In early 2002, when a freight train derailed near Minot, N.D., releasing a cloud of anhydrous ammonia over the town, police tried to call local radio stations, six of which are owned by radio mammoth Clear Channel Communications. According to news reports, it took them over an hour to reach anyone--no one was answering the Clear Channel phone. By the next day, 300 people had been hospitalized, many partially blinded by the ammonia. Pets and livestock died. And Clear Channel continued beaming its signal from headquarters in San Antonio, Texas--some 1,600 miles away.
Loss of democratic debate
When media companies dominate their markets, it undercuts our democracy. Justice Hugo Black, in a landmark media-ownership case in 1945, wrote: "The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
These big companies are not antagonistic; they do billions of dollars in business with each other. They don't compete; they cooperate to inhibit competition. You and I have both felt the impact. I felt it in 1981, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all came together to try to keep CNN from covering the White House. You've felt the impact over the past two years, as you saw little news from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Fox, or CNN on the FCC's actions. In early 2003, the Pew Research Center found that 72 percent of Americans had heard "nothing at all" about the proposed FCC rule changes. Why? One never knows for sure, but it must have been clear to news directors that the more they covered this issue, the harder it would be for their corporate bosses to get the policy result they wanted.
A few media conglomerates now exercise a near-monopoly over television news. There is always a risk that news organizations can emphasize or ignore stories to serve their corporate purpose. But the risk is far greater when there are no independent competitors to air the side of the story the corporation wants to ignore.
More consolidation has often meant more news-sharing. But closing bureaus and downsizing staff have more than economic consequences. A smaller press is less capable of holding our leaders accountable. When Viacom merged two news stations it owned in Los Angeles, reports The American Journalism Review, "field reporters began carrying microphones labeled KCBS on one side and KCAL on the other." This was no accident. As the Viacom executive in charge told The Los Angeles Business Journal: "In this duopoly, we should be able to control the news in the marketplace."
This ability to control the news is especially worrisome when a large media organization is itself the subject of a news story. Disney's boss, after buying ABC in 1995, was quoted in LA Weekly as saying, "I would prefer ABC not cover Disney." A few days later, ABC killed a "20/20" story critical of the parent company.
But networks have also been compromised when it comes to non-news programs which involve their corporate parent's business interests. General Electric subsidiary NBC Sports raised eyebrows by apologizing to the Chinese government for Bob Costas's reference to China's "problems with human rights" during a telecast of the Atlanta Olympic Games. China, of course, is a huge market for GE products.
Consolidation has given big media companies new power over what is said not just on the air, but off it as well. Cumulus Media banned the Dixie Chicks on its 42 country music stations for 30 days after lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush for the war in Iraq. It's hard to imagine Cumulus would have been so bold if its listeners had more of a choice in country music stations. And Disney recently provoked an uproar when it prevented its subsidiary Miramax from distributing Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. As a senior Disney executive told The New York Times: "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Follow the logic, and you can see what lies ahead: If the only media companies are major corporations, controversial and dissenting views may not be aired at all.
Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech. But it's not their intentions that matter; it's their capabilities. Consolidation gives them more power to tilt the news and cut important ideas out of the public debate. And it's precisely that power that the rules should prevent.
Independents' day
This is a fight about freedom--the freedom of independent entrepreneurs to start and run a media business, and the freedom of citizens to get news, information, and entertainment from a wide variety of sources, at least some of which are truly independent and not run by people facing the pressure of quarterly earnings reports. No one should underestimate the danger. Big media companies want to eliminate all ownership limits. With the removal of these limits, immense media power will pass into the hands of a very few corporations and individuals.
What will programming be like when it's produced for no other purpose than profit? What will news be like when there are no independent news organizations to go after stories the big corporations avoid? Who really wants to find out? Safeguarding the welfare of the public cannot be the first concern of a large publicly traded media company. Its job is to seek profits. But if the government writes the rules in a way that encourages the entry into the market of entrepreneurs--men and women with big dreams, new ideas, and a willingness to take long-term risks--the economy will be stronger, and the country will be better off.
I freely admit: When I was in the media business, especially after the federal government changed the rules to favor large companies, I tried to sweep the board, and I came within one move of owning every link up and down the media chain. Yet I felt then, as I do now, that the government was not doing its job. The role of the government ought to be like the role of a referee in boxing, keeping the big guys from killing the little guys. If the little guy gets knocked down, the referee should send the big guy to his corner, count the little guy out, and then help him back up. But today the government has cast down its duty, and media competition is less like boxing and more like professional wrestling: The wrestler and the referee are both kicking the guy on the canvas.
At this late stage, media companies have grown so large and powerful, and their dominance has become so detrimental to the survival of small, emerging companies, that there remains only one alternative: bust up the big conglomerates. We've done this before: to the railroad trusts in the first part of the 20th century, to Ma Bell more recently. Indeed, big media itself was cut down to size in the 1970s, and a period of staggering innovation and growth followed. Breaking up the reconstituted media conglomerates may seem like an impossible task when their grip on the policy-making process in Washington seems so sure. But the public's broad and bipartisan rebellion against the FCC's pro-consolidation decisions suggests something different. Politically, big media may again be on the wrong side of history--and up against a country unwilling to lose its independents.
Ted Turner is founder of CNN and chairman of Turner Enterprises. www.tedturner.com
Friday, July 10, 2009
Al Franken's Mick Jagger could liven up Senate
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/franken-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-comedian-who-becomes-a-us-senator.html
Al Franken's Mick Jagger impersonation could liven up Senate
It's official. After an election tally recount that lasted eight months, cost millions of dollars and tied up several courts, Al Franken, one of the early stars of NBC's "Saturday Night Live," is finally joining that exclusive club known as the U.S. Senate.
Democrats on Capitol Hill and at the White House were delighted at the news, seeing in Franken's arrival a 60th vote that would help them deter Republican filibusters.
For his part, the new senator -- restrained since the November election by a court fight against Sen. Norm Coleman -- was exuberant. Flanked by his wife Frannie, he thanked voters and added, "I can't wait to get started."
Mindful of the pitfalls of being a national figure before he was a name in state politics, Franken said he considered himself not the 100th senator but Minnesota's second senator.
"I know there's been a lot of talk about the fact that when I'm sworn in I'll be the 60th member of the Democratic caucus, but that's not how I see it," said Franken, who's expected to be seated Monday. "I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota, and that's how I'm going to do this job."
The reticence is well-placed. Even with Franken's vote, Democrats don't have a slam-dunk majority. Some, like Massachusetts' Sen. Ted Kennedy and West Virginia's 91-year-old Robert Byrd, are ailing. Others, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, are moderates who sometimes vote with Republicans.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, asked recently what difference Franken's election would have, quipped, "It's one more vote." Noting that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been forced to sweat a lot of votes, Durbin added, "We have this tough situation with Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, so on a good day, we have 57. Al Franken makes it 58. It lightens my load a little bit, and Harry's as well, to find the additional votes to reach 60. And that's what it's all about."
In terms of policy, there's no question Franken is a liberal. He has already signaled his support for a pro-labor bill making it easier for unions to recruit workers. President Obama said he looked forward to Franken's help on two other administration priorities -- "lowering healthcare costs and investing in the kind of clean energy, jobs, and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century." And Franken is a likely vote for the upcoming vote for Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Franken is not the first person from the world of entertainment to sign up for politics. President Reagan was a onetime president of the Screen Actors Guild. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is, let's face it, more famous worldwide as The Terminator.
And, frankly, he may not be the funniest person in the Senate. Only they know for sure.
Still, Franken's antics as a comedian are likely to follow him to the U.S. Senate, sometimes referred to, in all seriousness, as "the world's greatest deliberative body."
Of course at the rate scandals are coming out of Washington, maybe a comedian is just what the U.S. Senate needs.
-- Johanna Neuman
Al Franken's Mick Jagger impersonation could liven up Senate
It's official. After an election tally recount that lasted eight months, cost millions of dollars and tied up several courts, Al Franken, one of the early stars of NBC's "Saturday Night Live," is finally joining that exclusive club known as the U.S. Senate.
Democrats on Capitol Hill and at the White House were delighted at the news, seeing in Franken's arrival a 60th vote that would help them deter Republican filibusters.
For his part, the new senator -- restrained since the November election by a court fight against Sen. Norm Coleman -- was exuberant. Flanked by his wife Frannie, he thanked voters and added, "I can't wait to get started."
Mindful of the pitfalls of being a national figure before he was a name in state politics, Franken said he considered himself not the 100th senator but Minnesota's second senator.
"I know there's been a lot of talk about the fact that when I'm sworn in I'll be the 60th member of the Democratic caucus, but that's not how I see it," said Franken, who's expected to be seated Monday. "I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota, and that's how I'm going to do this job."
The reticence is well-placed. Even with Franken's vote, Democrats don't have a slam-dunk majority. Some, like Massachusetts' Sen. Ted Kennedy and West Virginia's 91-year-old Robert Byrd, are ailing. Others, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, are moderates who sometimes vote with Republicans.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, asked recently what difference Franken's election would have, quipped, "It's one more vote." Noting that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been forced to sweat a lot of votes, Durbin added, "We have this tough situation with Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, so on a good day, we have 57. Al Franken makes it 58. It lightens my load a little bit, and Harry's as well, to find the additional votes to reach 60. And that's what it's all about."
In terms of policy, there's no question Franken is a liberal. He has already signaled his support for a pro-labor bill making it easier for unions to recruit workers. President Obama said he looked forward to Franken's help on two other administration priorities -- "lowering healthcare costs and investing in the kind of clean energy, jobs, and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century." And Franken is a likely vote for the upcoming vote for Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Franken is not the first person from the world of entertainment to sign up for politics. President Reagan was a onetime president of the Screen Actors Guild. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is, let's face it, more famous worldwide as The Terminator.
And, frankly, he may not be the funniest person in the Senate. Only they know for sure.
Still, Franken's antics as a comedian are likely to follow him to the U.S. Senate, sometimes referred to, in all seriousness, as "the world's greatest deliberative body."
Of course at the rate scandals are coming out of Washington, maybe a comedian is just what the U.S. Senate needs.
-- Johanna Neuman
Saturday, May 9, 2009
You Tube In Egregious Censorship Of Alex Jones
http://www.prisonplanet.com/you-tube-in-egregious-censorship-of-alex-jones-channel.html
You Tube In Egregious Censorship Of Alex Jones Channel
Corporate gatekeeper claims that showing a print out of an article on live TV, something which happens on every mainstream TV news network every day, equates to copyright violation
Paul Joseph Watson & Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Monday, May 4, 2009
You Tube has once again proven itself to be a corporate gatekeeper working to destroy free speech and the alternative media after it suspended the popular ‘Alex Jones Channel’ - primarily because Alex Jones showed a print out of a news article during a live show.
The Alex Jones Channel, started by a fan but since embraced as the “official” Alex Jones micro-site on You Tube, has routinely featured in the website’s most popular ranking charts and has collectively attracted millions of views for videos painstakingly catalogued and uploaded over the past two years.
Those videos are now completely gone after You Tube bosses deleted the channel, primarily because the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette complained that Alex Jones had shown a computer print out of one of their articles about the Poplawski cop killer incident last month.
To claim that showing a print out of an article is a violation of copyright is of course completely insane - not a day goes by without TV news anchors showing newspaper stories on live television. Indeed, C-Span’s popular Washington Journal program almost entirely consists of the host showing clippings of newspaper stories every morning.
The real reason for the deletion in undoubtedly the fact that Alex Jones has been on the forefront of exposing stories that have later become major national scandals, such as the MIAC report. Our coverage of the swine flu hoax has again propelled us to the top of the video ranking charts and this no doubt had You Tube’s corporate owners Google running scared. As we have previously documented - Google has intimate ties with the CIA and the military-industrial complex.
To counter such egregious censorship, we are encouraging everyone to subscribe to and bookmark the new Infowarrior channel and alert people to the fact that this will be the new home for Alex Jones on You Tube (at least until they invent a reason to pull that one too).
YouTube is engaged in a hunting expedition against Alex Jones and other truth tellers. Truth is no longer acceptable on the site as it transforms itself into a pale reflection of Hulu, a site owned and operated by NBC Universal (GE) and Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp), that is to say a joint venture by a corporation owned by a death merchant (GE manufactures attack helicopters and jet engines) and a disinformation platform owned by a notorious neocon, Rupert Murdoch.
In the Hulu-ized universe, there is no room for truth or alternative media — all channels will contain the same schlock and mindless pablum already available on cable and broadcast television.
YouTube, the emerging Hulu-ized version, has no use for Alex Jones and has specifically targeted him because his videos invariably draw a large (in the millions) number of people. His message is not welcome in a commercial space dominated by Wall Street bankers and the “entertainment” transnational corporations they own, operate, and use to disseminate their opiated propaganda.
YouTube is owned by Google, the mega-internet corporation that has as its motto “Don’t be evil.” Of course, for Google evil is a relative matter, especially when it comes to the corporation’s removal or omission of information from its services, especially in the totalitarian gulag of China.
Google is infamous for its politically motivated removal of information. In February 2003, Google stopped showing the adverts of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation’s sewage treatment practices. In October 2007, Google banned advertisements from Maine U.S. Senator Susan Collins’ reelection campaign because she criticized the Soros operation MoveOn.org. In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion.
In addition to taking down Alex Jones videos, YouTube has blocked videos produced by Wael Abbas, an activist who posted videos of police brutality, and the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood.
YouTube has its agenda… and it fits in snugly with the agenda of the New World Order.
You Tube In Egregious Censorship Of Alex Jones Channel
Corporate gatekeeper claims that showing a print out of an article on live TV, something which happens on every mainstream TV news network every day, equates to copyright violation
Paul Joseph Watson & Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Monday, May 4, 2009
You Tube has once again proven itself to be a corporate gatekeeper working to destroy free speech and the alternative media after it suspended the popular ‘Alex Jones Channel’ - primarily because Alex Jones showed a print out of a news article during a live show.
The Alex Jones Channel, started by a fan but since embraced as the “official” Alex Jones micro-site on You Tube, has routinely featured in the website’s most popular ranking charts and has collectively attracted millions of views for videos painstakingly catalogued and uploaded over the past two years.
Those videos are now completely gone after You Tube bosses deleted the channel, primarily because the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette complained that Alex Jones had shown a computer print out of one of their articles about the Poplawski cop killer incident last month.
To claim that showing a print out of an article is a violation of copyright is of course completely insane - not a day goes by without TV news anchors showing newspaper stories on live television. Indeed, C-Span’s popular Washington Journal program almost entirely consists of the host showing clippings of newspaper stories every morning.
The real reason for the deletion in undoubtedly the fact that Alex Jones has been on the forefront of exposing stories that have later become major national scandals, such as the MIAC report. Our coverage of the swine flu hoax has again propelled us to the top of the video ranking charts and this no doubt had You Tube’s corporate owners Google running scared. As we have previously documented - Google has intimate ties with the CIA and the military-industrial complex.
To counter such egregious censorship, we are encouraging everyone to subscribe to and bookmark the new Infowarrior channel and alert people to the fact that this will be the new home for Alex Jones on You Tube (at least until they invent a reason to pull that one too).
YouTube is engaged in a hunting expedition against Alex Jones and other truth tellers. Truth is no longer acceptable on the site as it transforms itself into a pale reflection of Hulu, a site owned and operated by NBC Universal (GE) and Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp), that is to say a joint venture by a corporation owned by a death merchant (GE manufactures attack helicopters and jet engines) and a disinformation platform owned by a notorious neocon, Rupert Murdoch.
In the Hulu-ized universe, there is no room for truth or alternative media — all channels will contain the same schlock and mindless pablum already available on cable and broadcast television.
YouTube, the emerging Hulu-ized version, has no use for Alex Jones and has specifically targeted him because his videos invariably draw a large (in the millions) number of people. His message is not welcome in a commercial space dominated by Wall Street bankers and the “entertainment” transnational corporations they own, operate, and use to disseminate their opiated propaganda.
YouTube is owned by Google, the mega-internet corporation that has as its motto “Don’t be evil.” Of course, for Google evil is a relative matter, especially when it comes to the corporation’s removal or omission of information from its services, especially in the totalitarian gulag of China.
Google is infamous for its politically motivated removal of information. In February 2003, Google stopped showing the adverts of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation’s sewage treatment practices. In October 2007, Google banned advertisements from Maine U.S. Senator Susan Collins’ reelection campaign because she criticized the Soros operation MoveOn.org. In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion.
In addition to taking down Alex Jones videos, YouTube has blocked videos produced by Wael Abbas, an activist who posted videos of police brutality, and the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood.
YouTube has its agenda… and it fits in snugly with the agenda of the New World Order.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Richter, O'Brien to reunite on 'Tonight Show'
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-02-24-obrien-richter_N.htmRichter, O'Brien to reunite on 'Tonight Show'
2-24-9
Conan O'Brien and Andy Richter are teaming up again when O'Brien replaces Jay Leno.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — NBC says Andy Richter and Conan O'Brien will be back together again on late-night TV.
Richter, who worked with O'Brien for seven years on NBC's Late Night, will become the Tonight show announcer when O'Brien takes over from Jay Leno as host in June. NBC said Richter also will take part in comedy bits.
O'Brien called Richter a friend and one of the funniest people he knows, but couldn't resist a joke: O'Brien said he's looking forward to their reunion because Richter owes him $300.
After leaving Late Night in 2000, Richter starred in the TV series Andy Richter Controls the Universe and Andy Barker, P.I., and appeared in Talladega Nights, Blades of Glory and other movies.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tyler Durden Strikes Again...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifvj_WR6U4SqXfmya5NOa9-ZiHLQD9639UIG0
Station says porn clip interrupted Super Bowl
By MARK CARLSON
2-2-9
PHOENIX (AP) — A Tucson television station's broadcast of the Super Bowl on Sunday was interrupted for some viewers by about 10 seconds of pornographic material, the station said.
KVOA TV in Tucson released a statement saying that the only viewers who were able to see the material were those who receive the channel through Comcast cable.
The station said it will investigate the incident.
"When the NBC feed of the Super Bowl was transmitted from KVOA to local cable providers and through over-the-air antennas, there was no pornographic material," KVOA president and general manager Gary Nielsen said in a statement.
The KVOA statement said the station was dismayed and disappointed that some Comcast customers and their families were subjected to the material.
"KVOA will continue to investigate what happened to our clean signal and make sure our viewers get answers," Nielsen said in the statement.
Comcast spokeswoman Tracy Baumgartner confirmed that the company's standard feed was interrupted during the Super Bowl, although she said its high definition feed was not.
Baumgartner said engineers were investigating Sunday night.
Tucson media outlets reported that they received calls from irate viewers about the pornographic material.
A spokesman for Cox Cable said the company had not been affected.
"We have received no evidence that any inappropriate material was broadcast on any of our channels during the Super Bowl," Mike Dunne said. "The alleged incident appears to be isolated to the Comcast territory. We will offer our support to all appropriate organizations to help them determine what happened."
Joel Hilander of Tucson told The Associated Press that he and his young children saw the clip.
"I couldn't believe it. And I couldn't believe that my children were watching it either," Hilander said.
He said the interruption came just after the Arizona Cardinals' Larry Fitzgerald scored on a long touchdown reception during the final minutes of the game.
Station says porn clip interrupted Super Bowl
By MARK CARLSON
2-2-9
PHOENIX (AP) — A Tucson television station's broadcast of the Super Bowl on Sunday was interrupted for some viewers by about 10 seconds of pornographic material, the station said.
KVOA TV in Tucson released a statement saying that the only viewers who were able to see the material were those who receive the channel through Comcast cable.
The station said it will investigate the incident.
"When the NBC feed of the Super Bowl was transmitted from KVOA to local cable providers and through over-the-air antennas, there was no pornographic material," KVOA president and general manager Gary Nielsen said in a statement.
The KVOA statement said the station was dismayed and disappointed that some Comcast customers and their families were subjected to the material.
"KVOA will continue to investigate what happened to our clean signal and make sure our viewers get answers," Nielsen said in the statement.
Comcast spokeswoman Tracy Baumgartner confirmed that the company's standard feed was interrupted during the Super Bowl, although she said its high definition feed was not.
Baumgartner said engineers were investigating Sunday night.
Tucson media outlets reported that they received calls from irate viewers about the pornographic material.
A spokesman for Cox Cable said the company had not been affected.
"We have received no evidence that any inappropriate material was broadcast on any of our channels during the Super Bowl," Mike Dunne said. "The alleged incident appears to be isolated to the Comcast territory. We will offer our support to all appropriate organizations to help them determine what happened."
Joel Hilander of Tucson told The Associated Press that he and his young children saw the clip.
"I couldn't believe it. And I couldn't believe that my children were watching it either," Hilander said.
He said the interruption came just after the Arizona Cardinals' Larry Fitzgerald scored on a long touchdown reception during the final minutes of the game.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Tina Fey voted AP Entertainer of the Year
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVrlxW8kNa4k6Xx4fZboOef6597wD958G91G0
Tina Fey voted AP Entertainer of the Year
By JAKE COYLE
12-23-8
NEW YORK (AP) — Tina Fey is the entertainer of the year? You betcha. Fey was voted The Associated Press' Entertainer of the Year, an annual honor chosen by newspaper editors and broadcast producers across the country.
Fey was selected by AP members as the performer who had the greatest impact on culture and entertainment in 2008.
The 38-year-old comedian bested runner-up Robert Downey Jr., whose comeback was capped with the blockbuster smash "Iron Man," and the third-place vote-getter, Heath Ledger, who posthumously wowed audiences as the Joker in "The Dark Knight."
But it was Fey who most impressed voters largely with her indelible impression of Gov. Sarah Palin on "Saturday Night Live." Her cameos on her old show (where she had been a head writer until 2006) helped drive the show to record ratings and eventually drew an appearance from Palin herself.
"Tina Fey is such an obvious choice," said Sharon Eberson, entertainment editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "She gave us funny when we really needed it and, in a year when women in politics were making huge strides, Fey stood out in the world of entertainment."
Fey's 2008 was a full year, though.
She also starred for the first time on the big screen in "Baby Mama" (which grossed $60 million at the box office) and won three Emmys for her critically lauded NBC sitcom "30 Rock," which she created, stars in and writes. In the comedy series category, she won for best lead actress and best writing, and shared in the award for best comedy series.
"She simultaneously entertained us with her wit and put a mirror up to the nation during the election and made us think about what was going on," said Scott Shive, assistant features editor at the Lexington Herald-Leader. "She is the epitome of the smart kid coming out on top for once."
As soon as Palin was chosen as Sen. John McCain's running mate, conjecture mounted that the similar-looking Fey would have to return to "SNL" to play her.
In an interview earlier this fall, Fey recalled watching early TV coverage of Palin: "That was the first time I thought, `Well, I kinda do look like her. I'd better really listen to how this lady talks.'"
Fey debuted the impression on the "SNL" season premiere and a sensation quickly followed. She made four more pre-election appearances as Palin on the late-night satire.
"From the winks to the nods to the accent, she nailed it," said Marc Bona, assistant entertainment editor of the Plain Dealer in Cleveland. "And she did so at a time when it seemed the whole country was tuned in — both to the presidential race as well as 'Saturday Night Live.'"
Her Palin impression has benefited "30 Rock," too. The show premiered its fourth season to 8.5 million viewers, a million more than last year's opener.
Recently, she was also nominated for a Golden Globe (for best performance by an actress in a TV series, comedy or musical), as well as a Screen Actors Guild award.
"The `SNL' stuff has certainly changed things for me," Fey said in October. "A lot more people seem to know who I am."
Last year's AP Entertainer of the Year also went to a comedian whose satire blended in with politics: Stephen Colbert.
On the Net:
http://www.nbc.com/
Tina Fey voted AP Entertainer of the Year
By JAKE COYLE
12-23-8
NEW YORK (AP) — Tina Fey is the entertainer of the year? You betcha. Fey was voted The Associated Press' Entertainer of the Year, an annual honor chosen by newspaper editors and broadcast producers across the country.
Fey was selected by AP members as the performer who had the greatest impact on culture and entertainment in 2008.
The 38-year-old comedian bested runner-up Robert Downey Jr., whose comeback was capped with the blockbuster smash "Iron Man," and the third-place vote-getter, Heath Ledger, who posthumously wowed audiences as the Joker in "The Dark Knight."
But it was Fey who most impressed voters largely with her indelible impression of Gov. Sarah Palin on "Saturday Night Live." Her cameos on her old show (where she had been a head writer until 2006) helped drive the show to record ratings and eventually drew an appearance from Palin herself.
"Tina Fey is such an obvious choice," said Sharon Eberson, entertainment editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "She gave us funny when we really needed it and, in a year when women in politics were making huge strides, Fey stood out in the world of entertainment."
Fey's 2008 was a full year, though.
She also starred for the first time on the big screen in "Baby Mama" (which grossed $60 million at the box office) and won three Emmys for her critically lauded NBC sitcom "30 Rock," which she created, stars in and writes. In the comedy series category, she won for best lead actress and best writing, and shared in the award for best comedy series.
"She simultaneously entertained us with her wit and put a mirror up to the nation during the election and made us think about what was going on," said Scott Shive, assistant features editor at the Lexington Herald-Leader. "She is the epitome of the smart kid coming out on top for once."
As soon as Palin was chosen as Sen. John McCain's running mate, conjecture mounted that the similar-looking Fey would have to return to "SNL" to play her.
In an interview earlier this fall, Fey recalled watching early TV coverage of Palin: "That was the first time I thought, `Well, I kinda do look like her. I'd better really listen to how this lady talks.'"
Fey debuted the impression on the "SNL" season premiere and a sensation quickly followed. She made four more pre-election appearances as Palin on the late-night satire.
"From the winks to the nods to the accent, she nailed it," said Marc Bona, assistant entertainment editor of the Plain Dealer in Cleveland. "And she did so at a time when it seemed the whole country was tuned in — both to the presidential race as well as 'Saturday Night Live.'"
Her Palin impression has benefited "30 Rock," too. The show premiered its fourth season to 8.5 million viewers, a million more than last year's opener.
Recently, she was also nominated for a Golden Globe (for best performance by an actress in a TV series, comedy or musical), as well as a Screen Actors Guild award.
"The `SNL' stuff has certainly changed things for me," Fey said in October. "A lot more people seem to know who I am."
Last year's AP Entertainer of the Year also went to a comedian whose satire blended in with politics: Stephen Colbert.
On the Net:
http://www.nbc.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
