glen-martin
Media consolidation doesn't have to be bad
posted Tuesday, 8 February 2005
A lot of folks have been moaning about media consolidation. My own take is a little more ambivalent.
I first started thinking about this during the Atlanta Olympics coverage, when a small bomb that (to my recollection) didn't actually kill anyone nonetheless thoroughly disrupted event coverage for hours.
What choked me up was not only that some jerk would set off a bomb at an international event, but that there was no actual content to the news coverage. The media outlets had perhaps 15 minutes of news to report, not even that much I think, and they just put that tape and commentary on auto-repeat for hours. It was laughable. Stations were starting to report on what other stations were reporting, not on any actual event. They were making stuff up in their casting about for something to say.
Meanwhile there were real things happening. Sports, remember?
I got to thinking that if the media would just get on with it and consolidate, then they could show this non-news on just one channel and use the several others channels they owned for real material. The only reason every channel had to show the bomb coverage loop was that if they didn't everyone would accuse them of insensitivity, or they feared losing eyeballs to the death and mayhem seekers.
Fast forward to real consolidation. Folks are still moaning.
I heard a story recently about the inception of the 70s sitcom All in the Family. Seems the pilot was too edgy or quirky or something for the first network that underwrote the pilot, so the producer shopped it around elsewhere and as we all know the show become a success. Today, the two networks are owned by the same parent. Or so the story implied.
Now I don't want to argue that the workd is better off for "All in the Family" having been produced. Not remotely. But it seems that the reality of consolidation is one of more editorial control by parent companies, rather than using consolidation as an opportunity to present diversity of content.
So, I guess we're blowing any possible benefit from consolidation, and the naysayers are right.
"Those were the days", indeed.
I first started thinking about this during the Atlanta Olympics coverage, when a small bomb that (to my recollection) didn't actually kill anyone nonetheless thoroughly disrupted event coverage for hours.
What choked me up was not only that some jerk would set off a bomb at an international event, but that there was no actual content to the news coverage. The media outlets had perhaps 15 minutes of news to report, not even that much I think, and they just put that tape and commentary on auto-repeat for hours. It was laughable. Stations were starting to report on what other stations were reporting, not on any actual event. They were making stuff up in their casting about for something to say.
Meanwhile there were real things happening. Sports, remember?
I got to thinking that if the media would just get on with it and consolidate, then they could show this non-news on just one channel and use the several others channels they owned for real material. The only reason every channel had to show the bomb coverage loop was that if they didn't everyone would accuse them of insensitivity, or they feared losing eyeballs to the death and mayhem seekers.
Fast forward to real consolidation. Folks are still moaning.
I heard a story recently about the inception of the 70s sitcom All in the Family. Seems the pilot was too edgy or quirky or something for the first network that underwrote the pilot, so the producer shopped it around elsewhere and as we all know the show become a success. Today, the two networks are owned by the same parent. Or so the story implied.
Now I don't want to argue that the workd is better off for "All in the Family" having been produced. Not remotely. But it seems that the reality of consolidation is one of more editorial control by parent companies, rather than using consolidation as an opportunity to present diversity of content.
So, I guess we're blowing any possible benefit from consolidation, and the naysayers are right.
"Those were the days", indeed.
comments