TV Got What It Wanted -- A Profitable Horse Race

Television got what it wanted after this past Tuesday's Democratic primaries -- a profitable horse race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If Obama had won decisively and picked up enough delegates to put the nomination out of reach for Hillary, the race would have been over and the power trip and money geyser would have been shut down.

The media, and especially television, has become obsessed with itself, with news anchors, reporters, and pundits gorging on a huge, narcissistic power trip. These self-absorbed entertainers believe they control the outcome of the primary elections and that the primaries exist to give them the opportunity for exposure, to bloviate, and to influence voters. It's not about the candidates or democracy or who will be a better president, it's about them.

And the biggest farce of all is that the television programs with probably the biggest impact on the outcome of Tuesday's primaries are comedy shows -- NBC's Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It is fitting that entertainment programs in general and comedy programs, specifically, have now become the agenda setters for American political discourse.

Media bosses are thrilled about the Democratic deadlock because the bitter fight between Clinton and Obama will continue -- continue to be fought on television, which means millions more in advertising revenue at time when the country is heading into a recession, with a concomitant decline in advertising expenditures. CNN had the highest ratings in its history for the last debate between Clinton and Obama. Also-ran cable news network MSNBC has had a big run-up in ratings due to its debate coverage and because of the interruptive buffoonery of Chris Matthews and caustic, liberal humor of Keith Olbermann. These cable television networks' political coverage is not about enhancing the democratic process, it's about ratings.

Higher ratings mean that these networks (and the broadcast networks, too) can charge more for advertising. Advertisers follow eyeballs, especially 18-49 year old eyeballs, and it doesn't matter what they are watching -- Bill O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer, Brian Williams, or Keith Olbermann. A fist fight, a high-speed car chase, or anything violent are all good for ratings and profits. A political debate costs virtually nothing to produce and gets good ratings, thus, it produces higher profits, much higher profits than covering the war in Iraq.

Television is thrilled. The Clinton-Obama fight is a double-whammy winner for them -- more power and more profits. The comedy shows and comedians, which include Stewart, Colbert, O'Reilly, Matthews, and Olbermann, are even more ecstatic because it gives them even more to make fun of. The losers are the American public -- we are not laughing at the sad spectacle of candidates having to become nattering nabobs of negativism to appeal to the greedy, self-important media, especially television.

Comments

[babar77]

Gotta love the corporate news media that Bill Clinton had a heavy hand in creating.

[Mediacurmudgeon]

Good point!

[SolarPowerGuy]

Hey there, Mr. Warner.

"Media bosses are thrilled about the Democratic deadlock because the bitter fight between Clinton and Obama will continue -- continue to be fought on television, which means millions more in advertising revenue at time when the country is heading into a recession, with a concomitant decline in advertising expenditures."

I beat you to it! See my response to Marc Cooper's column, yesterday afternoon.

However, I gave a different reason for why the media bosses are thrilled. Media bosses are, for the most part, corporate guys -- in other words, Republicans. It serves their POLITICAL agenda -- not just their wallets -- for the Democrats to be seen as fractious and disorganized.

From this point forward: count on the media to pump Hillary when she's down, and to start pumping Obama if he should fall behind. They WANT a floor fight at the Democratic Party Convention, especially one which highlights the superdelegates, or the delegates from the line-jumping primaries in Florida and Michigan. If this should occur, pundits will mock the righteous indignation of Democratic voters after the tainted 2000 election. It would take the stink of vote manipulation off the Republicans like nothing else.

Having Clinton and Obama settle the nomination with a binding coin toss right now would be cool. It would be a strong statement of mutual trust and unity. Alas, it's not going to happen.

[Mediacurmudgeon]

You make an excellent point about them media wanting a floor fight at the convention. However, the Democrats would like to avoid that, I think, but they won't have the discipline -- they are shooting themselves in the foot. A coin toss might be a good idea -- a coin probably has more experience and brains than the super delegates.

[AndriaSmith]

Thank you for your information Mr. Warner. I enjoyed reading what you had to say. I always wondered how ratings were determined, or If they are accurate. You seem to be up on all of this. Good for you.

[BigRube]

I agree with Andria. That was some very good information.

[whimsicalpig]

The only reason the democrats are hamstrung with this never-ending public catfight is because the MSM manipulated us into thinking these 2 were our only choices.

of course they sidelined the other candidates, gave them a fraction of the coverage, a fraction of the news items. they wanted us to pick these 2 novelty acts so they could push this black man vs woman fiasco of a primary for as long as they could.

they new it would be a long and possibly boring year to cover, why not make the races as contentious as an american idol contest,

I'm sure the media has made millions on this, but it is the americn citizen who is paying because we are, at this point, stuck with 3 unworthy and unqualified second string candidates, thanks to the MSM

now we will painfully watch, like rubber-neckers at a car wreck, as the deomcratic party self-distruct before our eyes, finally going up in flames in Denver. and the MSM will be there to give us all wall-to-wall coverage.

why else would huckabee and paul be allowed to stay so prominent in the news cycle when serious candidates(who are also less "entertaining" ) were relegated to 2nd tier in both parties.

Now, the democrats are stuck with a nasty texas cheerleader movie type fight that seems to want to go on for ever.

[Mediacurmudgeon]

I love the notion of a "nasty Texas cheerleader movie type fight" -- you got it right!

[IndependentMeans]

I remember when CNN (Ted Turner) announced his new 24 hr. news channel. My first thought was, what would they fill the time with; alas, here we have 2008. Ditto heads that love hearing themselves talk, spinning insignificant items while real news is left to PBS, and sadly, the 24 hr. news experiment is a flop. Thank goodness for the Internet.

[parose10]

America is a free country and Americans generally get what they deserve. They can watch PBS or CSPAN and get good coverage on TV. And there are still lots of good newspapers. Don't forget, Americans voted for Bush twice. You can't blame the media for that - especially after the first term. Americans simply need to become more sophisticated in their politics.
It's true that much of the media is self absorbed and interested only in what sells. But they survive because people are willing to watch.

[Mediacurmudgeon]

Or listen to NPR -- you can do that while you're reading the Huffington Post.

[blastocyst]

I offer NBC's Brian Williams. Admittedly a pretty face, but nontheless a demagogue.

[samboo]

So true, I hate how in any other country the news outlets report with dignity and intelligence, while we get the "floating pie table" show.

[Durango]

I am so sick of the nauseating coverage of this campaign. And we still have 8 moths to go.

I couldn't figure out why the Corporate media was so fixated on the campaign so early. Now I have decided that they love this crap because

1. It is cheap to produce.

2. You don't need to have any special knowledge to be a pundit. Apparently you can say whatever lame idea comes into your head. And there are NO CONSEQUENCES for being wrong. Since no one in the media has any memory (except Jon Stewart and Colbert) no one cares.

After all: If the fools who thought Colin Powell made a compelling argument to the UN and who thought "the whole world thought Saddam had WMD" are still employed. (Being probably the single biggest mistake in the history of our Republic.) Why should anyone worry about being wrong?

The fools covering he campaign all majored in Good Hair instead of journalism.

[RButler]

This article goes right to the source of our political problems. Our communication with our elected leaders or future leaders gets filtered through a sloppy, unprofessional biased media with, as you say, no consequences for being wrong.

They speculate and make predictions under the pretense of wanting a clear cut outcome as soon as possible while they can barely contain their glee at the prospect of months more of infighting and/or a brokered convention. It's about them and a good story for them to talk about. They are completely, absolutely unable to clarify or settle the littlest events or controversies. They are more interested in presenting their opinions, analyses or interpretations than getting the facts straight. Why do the delegate counts differ from channel to channel? Doesn't the Democratic Party have an official count?

It's great that SNL was able to illustrate in a short opening skit about the recent debate, the disparate treatment of 2 candidates better than hours of punditry. It could have been any 2 candidates cause they do it all the time. They might as well make one wear a white hat and the other a black hat like the old western movies.

[Mediacurmudgeon]

Great line -- "The fools covering he campaign all majored in Good Hair instead of journalism." I'd like to steal that line for a blog.

[Rule Of Law]

Charles, good blog! I'm betting you get about 50 posts or less in response. You are guilty of ignoring the MSM and, as it turns out, HuffPo's meme, which is HillBama 24/7! If you aren't accusing one or the other ot some unforgivable sin, or going with the latest manufactured story line of the day--Is Hillary mistreated, is Obama a closet Islamist--then you just won't get any play here.

Which is Exactly your point, isn't it? One other blogger, to my knowledge, wrote here about the control the MSM has exercised over the selection process in this race, and was virtually ignored as well--though he said what I've been writing now for months. You are all dupes. You have all been sold a corporate product in the shape of a presidential hopeful. You have allowed yourselves, once again and right on time, to be distracted and seduced by the shiny metal objects....OOOOOOO, must have, must buy, must post like a lemming. And the media has taken your money to the bank.

How is this possible? Look at media ownership in America today. Who owns the means of production of your reality? 7 companies, each a part of a larger Corporate behemoth that depends on keeping us all in the dark so that they may continue crushing our Democracy, looting our Treasury, and killing our best and brightest. The lemmings have turned these blog posts into their new version of reality tv, replete with their "favorites" and wild guesses about their chances for success, all couched in the most derogatory and derisive dialogue with other distracted lemmings.

It is the "Big Brother" of Orwell, meets the Bread and Circuses of the Roman Empire. Bush decided, today that he needs neither the approval of the UN Or of the Congress to continue his wars. Did you know that? Do you care? Oh, just keep posting--at least it keeps your fingers busy.

[Rule Of Law]

Charles, here's a news flash for you---HuffPo has Natalie Portman up on the Front Page and the lemmings have flocked (or do they herd?) there to display their mutual ignorance. And we sit at 5 responses...I'm sure Voltaire has some pithy observation about this, but I am now too tired to try.

[ErnestineBass]

"Bread and Circuses" indeed, Rule of Law...but mostly circuses.

Sigh.

[3fingerbrown]

There may be touch of Orwell's Big Brother here, but generally I think that it was Huxley, not Orwell, who predicted the future correctly.

Huxley's brave new world was a place where people were controlled not by Soviet-style paranoia and brutality, as Orwell had it, but by constant pleasurable stimulation. In Huxley's novel the drug of choice was called summa; in reality the drug has many names: TV, Internet, video game, etc. The Obama-Clinton reality show is just another stage in our slow but painless death by amusement.

What would Neil Postman have made of this disgraceful spectacle had he lived to write about it?

[Rule Of Law]

Excellent call, 3finger. Need to reread my Huxley--mind if I borrow your insight? For all the good it will do over on the Natalie Portman article; lemmings...

[Mediacurmudgeon]

Well, stated. Yes, we must remember that the media are in the advertising delivery business, not the political coverage business.

[kls9331]

I actually saw Matthews having a little fit of conscience early Tuesday evening but was quickly chastised on-air by Brokaw. You could see the reaction in Matthew's face...like a kid who has had his hand slapped! These people profit from a slugfest and will do anything to encourage it! There is little difference in getting your news from MSNBC, Fox, CNN, or from the comedy shows!

[parose10]

Why were you watching? Are you a masochist?

[Mediacurmudgeon]

I disagree, the comedy shows are better because they make fun of the entire MSM process, even themselves.