Media Bias

[robert55]

I'm watching ABC's coverage of the "Detroit Problem", which comes down to the usual hand wringing about the horrible shape the auto industry is in.

Which makes me wonder who gave the news media the right to throw stones at Detroit??

Thirty years ago there was another Big Three in America; ABC, CBS and NBC. Today there are the obvious Big Four [the aforementioned and FOX] along with several dozen major and minor cable channels. The average viewship of the the big three is nothing compared to what it was in 1976, yet where are the news stories about the diminishing network viewership and ratings??

News reporters often fixate on the quality problems of American cars. Yet we hear nothing similar when a network cancels or a television series [in ABC's case, a high concept series like "Invasion" or "Joey" on NBC] or when a series receives terrible reviews [does anyone really watch "According to Jim" or is it on just to fill for dead air??]. The CBS Evening News [the Ford 500 of evening news] has been subtly revamped several times since it's Katie Couric's premier, but that just isn't mentioned.

And with all the layoffs and closures at newspapers and magazines, why isn't that reported to the same degree as the layoffs and closures in the auto industry?? Myself, I find the Internet much more convenient and, yes, cheaper than newspapers and magazines; also the immediate nature of the Internet has made most magazines [especially automotive magazine] obsolete. But why isn't this threat discussed as openly as the threats to the auto industry??

Finally, has anyone ever approached the news media about their basic conflicts of interest??

CBS is owned by Westinghouse, NBC by General Electric and ABC by the Disney Organization. Each of these corporations has international dealings with other corporations and certainly must weigh that in what they all their media outlets to report. [i watched the 1976 movie "Network" over the weekend, a major reason behind this posting]

I just wish that, rather than apologizing for their bad performance or making promises for the future, the next auto industry executive would turn the tables on an interviewer and discuss the aforementioned points. Of course, it'd never be aired, but it might make the news media think twice before their next attempt to generate ratings through hypocrisy.

Thank you for your time.

[RichardJensen]

http://blueovalblogs.com/blogs/?p=34

[Roadrunner]

The average viewship of the the big three is nothing compared to what it was in 1976, yet where are the news stories about the diminishing network viewership and ratings??

 

If you read Poynter and other journalism industry Web sites, there was much hand-wringing over the network news circa 1996. Now it's all about newspapers vs. the Internet media.

[kyle]

I don't think you can compare the cancellation of a tv series in the same context as a company laying off 60,000 employees and fighting for their life....do you? if that is the case maybe you are watching to much tv.

 

The problems detroit has affects a very large percentage of the population....granted not what it used to....but still a significant amount. On top of that Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country, probably the highest forecloure rate on homes......that has consequences beyond cattie couric's 3rd place in the ratings.

 

Do I think their is bias in the media.....sure.....just not here.

[RichardJensen]

The issue is whether the traditional media is engaged in self-destructive conduct similar to that of the Big Three. In my opinion, they are.

 

Further, according to some source cited at AutoExtremist, the Big Three cut advertising in print media by $100M last year. So there is some connection between the media and the health of the Big Three. Consider how many truck commercials air during the average football game, etc.

 

I don't think this is an irrelevant discussion.

Edited January 30, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Roadrunner]

the Big Three cut advertising in print media by $100M last year. So there is some connection between the media and the health of the Big Three. Consider how many truck commercials air during the average football game, etc.

 

Wait a minute!

 

I see some logical flaws here:

- While it is true that the Big Three did not advertise as strongly in the print media, was that not picked up at all by foreign manufacturers? I know that Nissan will do heavy print campaigns in newspapers like USA Today.

- You equated broadcast media with print media. These are two different sides of the media picture.

- The number of truck commercials in a football game can easily be taken over by Toyota and Nissan money* Did you see the massive Toyota ad campaigns during the '06 NASCAR races?

 

Basically I just don't see the media's health as being connected to the Big Three's health on an advertising level. I do see the media's health being affected, circulation-wise, by the destruction of the middle class. Sadly, poor people don't read the paper it often feels like. (Of course, they have larger concerns like feeding their kids).

 

* - as an aside, where do they advertise the Honda Ridgeline anyway?

[kyle]

:

* - as an aside, where do they advertise the Honda Ridgeline anyway?

 

In most gay and lesbian publications.....at least that is what I HEAR!

[jpd80]

Basically I just don't see the media's health as being connected to the Big Three's health on an advertising level. I do see the media's health being affected, circulation-wise, by the destruction of the middle class. Sadly, poor people don't read the paper it often feels like. (Of course, they have larger concerns like feeding their kids).

 

Two things, people read papers far less now and the kids of today play more games and net surf.

Its the Media execs turn to feel their own blow torch.

Edited January 30, 2007 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Wait a minute!

 

I see some logical flaws here:

- While it is true that the Big Three did not advertise as strongly in the print media, was that not picked up at all by foreign manufacturers? I know that Nissan will do heavy print campaigns in newspapers like USA Today.

- You equated broadcast media with print media. These are two different sides of the media picture.

- The number of truck commercials in a football game can easily be taken over by Toyota and Nissan money* Did you see the massive Toyota ad campaigns during the '06 NASCAR races?

 

Basically I just don't see the media's health as being connected to the Big Three's health on an advertising level. I do see the media's health being affected, circulation-wise, by the destruction of the middle class. Sadly, poor people don't read the paper it often feels like. (Of course, they have larger concerns like feeding their kids).

 

* - as an aside, where do they advertise the Honda Ridgeline anyway?

1) According to Pete DeLorenzo, the imports didn't pick up enough of the slack.

 

2) Why not equate broadcast and print media? What's the name of the company that owns CNN?

 

3) See item 1.

 

You cannot isolate the financial problems of two of the largest companies in the country, from the country as a whole.

 

Theoretically, the imports *could* run more commercials and buy more ad space but look at it this way:

 

Chevy pulls a Malibu ad. Ford pulls a Fusion ad. Does it necessarily follow that Toyota is going to buy two more Camry ads?

 

Or that they'll pay the same price?

 

Same thing applies to trucks, etc. More products on the market mean more advertising (more or less). Fewer products mean less advertising.

[Roadrunner]

1) According to Pete DeLorenzo, the imports didn't pick up enough of the slack.

Do you have a linked source from "Sweet Pete D." (as the Jalop likes to call him)?

 

2) Why not equate broadcast and print media? What's the name of the company that owns CNN?

 

They are two different breeds -- that which affects print media does not automatically affect television news.

 

If the middle class, squeezed out by the Brazilification of America (as Tom Friedman puts it), can't afford to pick up the newspaper or grab a Motor Trend regularly, that affects both areas of printed news media. However, in theory, everyone can watch analog television news broadcasts. Also, most can read up on the Internet, but the advertising market is not strong enough to support a newspaper.

 

Theoretically, the imports *could* run more commercials and buy more ad space but look at it this way:

 

Chevy pulls a Malibu ad. Ford pulls a Fusion ad. Does it necessarily follow that Toyota is going to buy two more Camry ads?

 

Or that they'll pay the same price?

 

They may or may not pay the same price to put the commercial on the air. The ad market, as I understand it, is relevant to supply and demand.

As for the production values and marketing costs, imports naturally have an upper hand because of the positive perceived quality that American brands lack.

 

You are correct, though, that it is easier for Toyota to sell a Camry versus Ford or GM to sell a car. This means that Toyota's advertising is going to be less because they have more sales.

 

However, look at it this way: With the growth of Nissan, Hyundai and Kia, isn't it logical that those brands, interested in increasing market share, will increase their advertising as they grow in the States?

[robert55]

Actually, aside from the BBC News and the occassional network news, I don't watch very much television.

The point I was trying to make is that the negative bias the television networks have toward the Big Three can't be doing very much to help sales and/or buyer confidence in their products.

A good case in point was an article in yesterday's WSJ regarding a settlement Toyota made with Camry owners over recurring sump problems. The article was buried in the back of the Journal and I didn't find it on any of my usual news sources. If it had been Ford with the problem it would have been front page in most newspaper and the lead in most business segments on the evening news.

Nor am I insensitive towards the layoffs inthe auto industry. I used the analogy of the cancelled television series to show the way television networks gloss over their failures. Also, why don't we ever hear about the respective layoffs and corporate problems at GE, Westinghouse or Disney??

BUT I did feel ABC News did a better job with their segment last night, pesonalizing the on going problems the auto workers face. The stories I've read have dealt more with the corporate aspect of the crisis, when the workers and their plight is the true story.

[kyle]

Actually, aside from the BBC News and the occassional network news, I don't watch very much television.

The point I was trying to make is that the negative bias the television networks have toward the Big Three can't be doing very much to help sales and/or buyer confidence in their products.

A good case in point was an article in yesterday's WSJ regarding a settlement Toyota made with Camry owners over recurring sump problems. The article was buried in the back of the Journal and I didn't find it on any of my usual news sources. If it had been Ford with the problem it would have been front page in most newspaper and the lead in most business segments on the evening news.

Nor am I insensitive towards the layoffs inthe auto industry. I used the analogy of the cancelled television series to show the way television networks gloss over their failures. Also, why don't we ever hear about the respective layoffs and corporate problems at GE, Westinghouse or Disney??

BUT I did feel ABC News did a better job with their segment last night, pesonalizing the on going problems the auto workers face. The stories I've read have dealt more with the corporate aspect of the crisis, when the workers and their plight is the true story.

 

 

now your point is more relevant.....I agree that the problems of the domestics are magnified as compared to the imports, especially the japanese. don't think that the problems they are facing are not incredibly huge. GM, Chrsler and Ford are facing a uphill battle regardless of the media's position.

 

Face it everone loves a winner and nobody wants to be around losers. When the fortunes turn around for the domestics I think so will their press coverage.

 

btw did anyone see hdnet tv last night with dan rather? caught it between the atlanta thrasher hockey game....carried alot of info on ford's downsizing from the taurus plant to mexico......pretty interesting...had a employee from mexico who was laid off when ford outsourced a component....and he did not get a dollar in severance. just a sad story all around as ford is going through this large but necessary restructing.

[RichardJensen]

Do you have a linked source from "Sweet Pete D." (as the Jalop likes to call him)?

They are two different breeds -- that which affects print media does not automatically affect television news.

 

If the middle class, squeezed out by the Brazilification of America (as Tom Friedman puts it), can't afford to pick up the newspaper or grab a Motor Trend regularly, that affects both areas of printed news media. However, in theory, everyone can watch analog television news broadcasts. Also, most can read up on the Internet, but the advertising market is not strong enough to support a newspaper.

They may or may not pay the same price to put the commercial on the air. The ad market, as I understand it, is relevant to supply and demand.

As for the production values and marketing costs, imports naturally have an upper hand because of the positive perceived quality that American brands lack.

 

You are correct, though, that it is easier for Toyota to sell a Camry versus Ford or GM to sell a car. This means that Toyota's advertising is going to be less because they have more sales.

 

However, look at it this way: With the growth of Nissan, Hyundai and Kia, isn't it logical that those brands, interested in increasing market share, will increase their advertising as they grow in the States?

1) I only have what DeLorenzo asserted as the decline in ad revenues, used to explain--in part--layoffs in the newsrooms at TimeWarner.

 

2) Tom Friedman is hardly one to talk about 'Brazilification', as he is a card-carrying member of, and one who caters to, the 'educational elite'--people with BS or higher degrees, people who are more upwardly mobile due to their educational background. If he wants to get on a soapbox, he could do worse than by drawing attention to the causes of income stratification, instead of lamenting its effects (and, for the record, the 'cause' of income stratification can't be pinned on either political party). But that's neither here nor there.

 

3) The proliferation of cable network viewing options has radically curtailed broadcast viewership. Further, the issue of credibility is as much a part of the reaction to network broadcasts as it is to print news. In the same way that Ford, GM, and Chrysler didn't 'get' what was going on with the imports, the mainstream media didn't 'get' Limbaugh et al. Now with Fox News sitting out there as the most popular news network, the talking heads and chattering classes still don't get it.

 

Understand, I'm not taking sides, nor am I going to get into a debate about the relative merits of Fox News vs. CNN.

 

I just think that there are eerie similarities between CNN (and the broadcast news units) failure to understand and deliver what a large and disaffected portion of their audience wanted, and the failure of Ford, GM, and Chrysler to understand and deliver what a large and disaffected portion of their audience wanted.

 

4) Yes, the greater number of players in the car segment mean more ad dollars overall--with an important caveat: If Ford pulls an ad, it's unlikely that that ad space is going to be filled by a second ad for a Toyota or Honda product.... That is to say, Suppose Ford runs 100 print ads in Time magazine in a given year. Say Toyota runs 100. Ford cuts 25, does it follow that Toyota will bump their ad buy up to 125?

 

That inventory, in the absence of demand, will sell for a lower price.

 

-------------------

 

There are, as I see it, two issues here:

 

1) Have the big players in broadcast and print news lost their audience in a manner similar to the way the Big Three lost their customers?

 

2) What effect does the decline of the Big Three have on broadcast and print media in general.