CNN lost “almost half” of their viewers in the last year
washingtonexaminer.com
washingtonexaminer.com
As a consumer of news, I want/need someone to break a story that took days, weeks, or months to construct. I can voice my own post-debate opinions - I don't need theirs. I can find feel-good/feel-bad stories in my own neighborhood - I don't need theirs. I don't need Anderson Cooper to give lip service to "keeping them honest." I need journalism from which I learn something.
There is no production value in either of those categories that would build brand identity or loyalty from its consumers. Without actual journalism a news source is just a broadcast medium for press releases and there is nothing stopping consumers from tuning out or finding an interchangeable service.
There probably isn't a big enough market of people that care to sustain it, but it would be wonderful if a rainbow pot of gold could fund a 24/7 channel consisting of Frontline and This American Life caliber journalism.
It was one for a minute accidentally and we encountered serious stupidity. That's somewhat impressive.
CJR for the meta stuff.
CNN, Time, NewsWeek, etc. are just crap.
NPR is excellent infotainment, but not news.
The lack of content of the news when I look at CNN vs BBC/PBS/NYT/WSJ/NPR is appalling. They have simply forgotten how to offer a decent view of things that actually matter in the world.
MSNBC and CNN are both lagging behind Fox News in the ratings. Fox is the second highest ranks cable network in prime time, while CNN ranks 21st and MSNBC is 25th. CNN began it’s sharp decline in ratings during the first quarter of 2010 with the main hosts loosing half their viewers in a year. This is despite recent newsworthy evens such as the earthquake in Haiti and health care reform.
http://hnsummary.com/2010/03/30/cnn-lost-almost-half-of-thei...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernanke-declares-the-reces...
The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.
If I were the usual Atlas Shrugged-thumping Reaganite wingnut this is where I would point out that Ponzi financing is unsustainable and the size of the government must be slashed. Fortunately I am saved from that embarrassment by the fact that Berkshire Hathaway can now borrow money more cheaply than the U.S. Treasury. The bubble has popped and the economy is taking the second leg down.
You can see it in the grocery stores -- the deflationary decline is here. Wal-Mart tried heroically to raise prices for a while, but now they are back to cutting prices on basic necessities. The inventory rebuilding that stabilized GDP is finishing up.
And then there is the health care "reform" plan that is about to rip the guts out of the economy. If people are having trouble buying groceries, it will break them to be forced to buy a gold-plated health plan that covers singing chiropractors. Nor can they afford the massive penalty tax in lieu of insurance. Nor can they afford to neglect diabetes and medical treatment because of the new health care supply taxes.
And let's not even think about the energy rationing measures. The 2008-2009 leg of the recession was caused mainly by the spike in energy and metal prices. Cap-and-trade will spike energy prices just as badly, guaranteeing that the economy will plummet down again as much as it already has.
If the fed and treasury are keeping rates too low and increasing the money supply too aggressively, we should be seeing <i>in</i>flation. But we're not. That indicates to me that interest rates should be kept low and quantitative easing should be pursued until the threat of deflation recedes. You can't raise the specter of deflation and then demand that the government stops borrowing or raises interest rates -- that's contradictory. Japan in the 90s/00s and the US in the 20s/30s had a deflationary cycle precisely because they attempted austerity measures too quickly.
Also, I'm pretty sure singing chiropractors are not mentioned in the healthcare bill :). The rest of your points are similarly exaggerated or inaccurate.
EDIT: Wait. Seriously. Did you say that the 2008-2009 collapse was primarily caused by commodity prices? You never heard of a little industry called "housing"?
Japan has the largest Debt to GDP ratio in the G7. They have built every bridge to nowhere they can build. The only reason they haven't collapsed is because their culture encourages savings. Right now that country is a portrait of why Keynes was terribly mistaken about virtually everything written in his "General Theory". I'm not sure what the Keynesians would have them do now-where else can they go? I've read they've considered banning cash. I'm not sure this will have the effect they want. Eventually they will need to pay off their debt, let those banks fail, and roll back their government programs. One day they will have no choice in the matter.
Also, almost everything I've ever read about Japan (not an expert) has blamed the high savings rate for the deflationary spiral there. As far as the general idea of keynesians being wrong, they have 29-32, 32-37, 37 double dip and the Japanese situation at the turn of the century as data points in their favor.
Singing chiropractors: the singing part is an exaggeration, but not a big one. They are defining a mandatory minimum of "good" health care benefits. The specialists and pressure groups will rapidly purchase legislation requiring their favorite services be covered: the fanciest available birth control, massage, 30 therapist visits a year, and so forth. Give everything to everybody! Most people cannot afford this and will be fined harshly; many uninsured and self-insured will be much worse off.
Housing construction, manufacturing, furniture, etc. would have caused a sharp turn in the business cycle in 2008. However it was Chinese demand for energy and metals that spiked prices. Only a tiny fraction of families were in housing and affiliated industries, but every family paid thousands more a year for gasoline, heating oil, airfare, etc. That's what sent the broad economy into free fall. If we get cap-and-trade (an actual austerity measure), we will get a repeat of 2008.
I'm no economist but I have read a few books on the topic of varying degrees of depth. I saw this crisis coming and got out of the stock market and went to a job that was far safer than the one I had (which was based on the housing industry continuing to grow).
Check out the Peter Schiff Was Right videos on Youtube for some humor on this topic.
At least with Fox, I can see how somebody who's into that kind of thing can feel like they are getting information (even if it's usually wrong or overblown).
It was a really strange move to make all that investment to be the online leader and then threw it away.
Doesn't sound like specialization is working well for MSNBC, to me.
Are you kidding? MSNBC is even more right wing than CNN. PBS is about it, as far as mainstream TV news goes. And even they are pretty much in the center, rather than on the left.
For some good left-wing media try Democracy Now!, Free Speech Radio News, and FAIR's Counterspin. Some college radio stations, WBAI in NYC, and Pacifica Radio afilliates are also good.
My problem with CNN and MSNBC is that both of them tried to follow Fox to the right once Fox became popular. A losing strategy if they were after Fox's right-wing audience, since they were clearly not as committed as Fox was to being further to the right than any other station on TV. They should have moved left instead, and provided a real alternative.
a) overt politics doesn't mix well with HN, and
b) left/right is a matter of perspective.
As an observer from a country where the most conservative Prime Minister since federation was still some way to the left of Obama, I'd characterise both MSNBC and CNN as occupying the centre left of the right. In contrast, my Republican father in law considers them pinko-commie bastards. Who is right?