• update

    The text box issue is fixed. You can now post just a title in replies again. Thank you Manny! Working on the rest. Thank you for your patience.

Home JackpineRadical Rooms JPR Reading Room Trump's & U.S. News Media's Incestuous Relationship

  • Koko (3376 posts)
    Profile photo of Koko Donor

    Trump's & U.S. News Media's Incestuous Relationship

    Trumping Trump and Howling at the Moonves
    Donald Trump and the U.S. news media have an incestuous but symbiotic love-hate relationship. Trump rails against the media and the media rails against Trump, while both sides profit.

    By JP Sottile  March 16, 2017     Consortium News Investigation
    Until the 2016 election, the media business (local stations, regional networks, medium-sized station groups, cable news channels and the big four broadcasters) reliably reaped a bi-annual windfall from the hundreds of millions of dollars in political advertising they packed into the commercial breaks in-between their programming. The two-year election cycle was good. The presidential cycle was way better. But Trump changed the paradigm.
    This time, the coverage became the political commercial and the political commercial became the programming. Simply put, Trump’s bloviating, bombastic style translated into ratings. And those ratings translated into dollars that could be earned by charging more for the ads in-between the coverage.

    So, while Hillary and anti-Trump groups were flooding the commercial breaks with hundreds of millions of dollars in ad buys, Trump’s freebie coverage was raising the price of all advertising by keeping eyeballs glued to the boob tube. Perhaps even more importantly, the same free media that both served Trump’s political campaign and, thanks to his power to hold audiences, the value of ad time … also essentially rescued the cable news industry’s flaccid business model.

    Quite frankly, the cable news business was on the rocks before Trump. But Pew Research noted that 2015 (the start of Trump’s long march) was the first time the industry saw primetime viewer growth after three years of decline. Daytime viewership grew, too.  Pew also found that ad revenue grew a bit for the major networks, but cable news saw a much-needed 10 percent increase in both ad and subscriber revenue.

    ——————-

    Good Read with new details of 2016 Election Media Coverage and the obscene profits our Media Moguls have and will continue to benefit from in covering Trump.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/16/trumping-trump-and-howling-at-the-moonves/

     

    Doremus Jessup, jwirr like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • Doremus Jessup (2223 posts)
    Profile photo of Doremus Jessup Donor

    1. Imagine what the ratings would have been had Bernie been covered fairly.

    He got the negative slant from all sides except for on Morning Joe of all places. Not even Trump got the crowds that Bernie had after he caught fire in Iowa. With any fair treatmnet before the primaries hit the southern circuit, Bernie would have done MUCH better in those primaries. I compare his coverage to the ratings given by the credit rating industry. Give them what they want or they will go elsewhere. The difference being, where would the Clinton campaign had to go with 6 corporations dominating all of the media? The Progressive went with Clinton? So much for the fighting bobfest… Mother Jones going for Hillary? Mother Jones herself would have put an end to that in short time. In fairness to The Nation, they got behind Bernie from the beginning. Between New York, California and the caucus states, I’m still not convinced that Bernie didn’t actually get more votes overall than Clinton in the primaries. Indiana would have been in play in the general election had Bernie been the nominee. Obama won in 2008 and the state hadn’t went democratic in a general since 1964 and 1932 and 1936 before that.

    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity. End ALL occupations and bring the troops home.