This is the full stop. Leave it to a bunch of suits to come up with a dairy subscription that doesn't come with milk.
interesting point. maybe there was some benefit to building the cnn+ infrastructure prior to their merger, and they did it because they figure they'll need it eventually
Not only is there no alternative for this content, it was unavailable entirely before ESPN+ launched. Of course I'm not defending the lack of cable ESPN content on ESPN+; I would love to have that as well.
The irony of all of this is that I think a lot of people would pay a few bucks a month for a real hard news streaming service. I could even imagine some sort of a package deal where like the NYT or some other top shelf paper worked with such a new service and you could get both as a package. Ironically, or maybe not, the pay per household model of how carriers pay for the content has really driven the lowest common denominator and as more people pull out of cable, it's actually strengthening the Fox like market share. During lunch here at home, I'd love a 15 minute quick hit of news and the market as I make a sandwich and eat it.
patreon for Channel 5 and a handful of super-independent instagram war photographers like Finn Depacier. Hasn't congealed into a product yet, but it will.
“The decision puts an abrupt end to an ambitious and aggressive venture that people familiar with the matter say rankled David Zaslav, the new CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, from the start. Zaslav was annoyed by the decision of Jason Kilar, the former CEO of WarnerMedia when it was owned by AT&T, to launch CNN+ just weeks before Discovery was set to take over operations. But he was unable to communicate with WarnerMedia management, owing to legal boundaries surrounding the merger process.”
https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/cnn-plus-shut-down-warner-b...
Specifically, it doesn't fit the CNN brand vision. Discovery already has lots of brands (with various niches) tied to non-news documentary and infotainment content.
Wait may we actually see some positive change come out of this nonsense?
I'm not sure that's true. When everything we consume all day is from rage machines, some hard journalism would be very, very welcome. Just a display of sensibleness would be rejuvenating, no matter what they were reporting.
Rage machines were once the new, exciting thing. Now, I think many if not most are worn out.
In business, the majority opinion doesn't matter. In fact, if the majority agrees with you, you are too late to the market.
> We could have been elevating NPR or the New Yorker this whole time but it hasn't happened.
The New Yorker has an intellectual hurdle and mostly isn't hard journalism. NPR has its own limitations, including lack of a cable news channel.
Where can I read more about that? It would be fantastic! Imagine a Walter Cronkite in this day and age; my completey amateur guess is that it would be enormously popular. Just imagine watching news without the stressors of constant emotional assaults (try PBS's News Hour for an idea of that alternate reality). But very possibly I'm projecting my fantasy of 'hard journalism' onto Warner Media's concept.