Re: Disney versus Koppel

[SteveOrdinetz <steveord@bit-net.com>]

Donna Halper wrote:
>While not strictly a radio topic, this certainly does relate to 
>broadcasting's (allegedl) commitment to the public interest.  I notice 
>that ABC is seriously considering cancelling "Nightline" and replacing it 
>with Letterman (whose contract with CBS is nearly up).  The reason given 
>is that while Ted Koppel's long-running show still gets numbers, they are 
>not "desirable" numbers-- that is, the audience is skewing older.  Now, 
>given that 45+ adults have lots of disposible income and absolutely buy 
>things, I fail to understand why ad agencies still maintain that only a 
>younger audience is desirable.


I wonder how much a 45+ audience is swayed by advertising?  I'm a boomer 
myself and I don't think I'm all that influenced by ads...I'm not gonna buy 
a Suburu no matter how many times that annoying ad tells me how safe it is 
and that it has a Porsche engine in it.  Apparently advertisers seem to 
feel that I'm not alone and that people over a certain age aren't worth 
targeting, and until someone convinces them otherwise it's not likely to 
change.

The networks are discovering that they can no longer afford to have 
something for everyone in these days of a zillion cable channels and 
limited attention spans.  If they can have a cable network of nothing but 
old cartoons, then surely someone will find a home for a show like 
Nightline if there's audience demand for it.   What about public 
tv/radio?  They tend to program to an older demographic presumable more 
interested in detailed analysis of world events, maybe that would be a good 
home for something like that.



>   But I digress.  My question is, if Disney is successful is getting rid 
> of Nightline, despite its good numbers, does this also spell the death 
> knell for network news on TV?  I mean, the excuse given for getting rid 
> of Nightline is that the cable networks like CNN and Fox already provide 
> plenty of news.  But for me, what is NOT provided is in depth commentary 
> and examination of various under-reported news stories-- which Nightline 
> does very well.  I always thought that networks, be they radio or TV, 
> would want to be associated with a strong news division, because it keeps 
> the audience informed, while other programming keeps them entertained. I 
> realise that network news divisions are expensive to operate, but they 
> have performed what I believe is an essential service.  However, in this 
> era of conglomerates, it seems that public interest falls second to 
> bottom line.   Are we now in fact finished with the concept of "public 
> interest"?  I seldom see the FCC taking licenses away from owners based 
> on their not serving the public interest....


How do you define "serving the public interest"?  Are you advocating the 
return to the days of the Sunday morning public affairs ghetto...lots of 
dry "public interest" shows that few people ever listened to, no matter how 
well they were done?   Are you serving the public if no one is 
listening?  If a tree falls in the forest....?   If a sizable audience 
wants to hear rap music 24/7 and a station plays it, aren't they serving 
the public interest?