Archive for the 'Eyeballs and Eardrums (The Media)' Category
Thursday, February 13th, 2014
The filters that govern mainstream journalism sometimes produce sentences that are simply hilarious. Reporting today on the proposed merger between the Comcast and Time-Warner media profit fiefdoms, The New York Times notes that “the deal, if completed, could have impacts on consumers across the country, though it is unlikely to reduce competition in many markets.”
To be sure, you can’t really reduce what does not exist, can you?
Wednesday, November 6th, 2013
66-21 wound up 45-55. The system works!
Monday, November 4th, 2013
“It’s the car you want when you win the lottery.” Um, no and no. But that was the teaser for this latest belch from the craptastic faux-thoughtful faux-news beast known as 60 Minutes:
It almost belongs over on Death by Car, but, in the end, what this chunk of naked ideology, thoughtless worship of the main product killing the planet, and blatant “market segment” pandering says about TCT topics is more newsworthy than the actions of the Italian and German creeps who manufacture these automotive monstrosities. This schlock is what happens when news gets eaten by marketing.
Shameful. Entirely shameful.
Wednesday, September 25th, 2013
Highly interesting report today by Ad Age reporter Jeanine Poggi. Poggi discloses some important aspects of how the big business marketing endeavor known as “television” functions. Turns out one of the major devices there is refusal to permit what’s called “a la carte” TV subscriptions.
The basic problem is this:
A significant amount of TV viewing comes from casual viewers watching channels that are available to them, but that they likely wouldn’t want otherwise. Networks that fall outside of the top tier include independents like ReelzChannel and Ovation, as well as networks owned by conglomerates like Viacom‘s Centric and Discovery Communications‘ Velocity and the Military Channel.
If people could subscribe to plans of their own choosing, the channels that draw this excess viewing would be dropped and disappear, meaning that the price of ads on channels people actually want would increase, while — horror of horrors! — people might actually watch less television.
Poggi quotes an insider with an utterly exquisite surname:
“If people watch the same amount of TV, only getting channels they want, the supply of ratings points would remain constant for the most part,” Mr. Parent echoed.
But Mr. Parent doesn’t believe the same amount of content would be consumed on TV. “There would be less casual viewing and a drop somewhat in surfing,” he said. “It might drive some people online to watch certain shows. If out of the 10 networks there’s nothing on you want to watch, you will turn it off.”
This, of course, cannot be permitted:
[M]edia buyers are skeptical the industry will ever allow consumers to cherrypick individual networks.
TV networks are staunchly against the idea, fearing consumers wouldn’t pay for their smaller networks like MTV Jams or Cloo and might even blow a hole in revenue for midsize players.
But advertisers could also suffer if cable bundles break up and smaller channels thin in number, which would send more viewers to the bigger networks and drive up prices of reaching a mass audience.
This openly secret core aspect of institutional reality is, as always, a sharp disproof of the #1 alleged reason for allowing private business to run the media environment: “We give people what they want.”
Friday, August 16th, 2013
The Nation has long since been all but unreadable. Now, they are turning themselves in a tchotchke peddler. And the geegaws are utterly terrible, too. If liberals were half as smart as they like to think they are (or as The Nation tells them they are), this crap wouldn’t be possible.
Thursday, August 1st, 2013
Market totalitarianism makes state totalitarianism look like a dog-and-pony show. No Führer, Duce, or Commissar could gain such compliance with overclass needs.