Tag Archives: New York magazine

“Roseanne” and Sinclair Take Network TV Tribal

Posted on by

Despite what we’ve been learning about Facebook and its power to deliver “fake news”, it’s worth keeping in mind that your fellow Americans (‘Muricans) still get most of their news, fake or otherwise, from their local TV stations. That’s according to a Pew survey from last summer.

As we digest the power of “Fox and Friends” to guide White House policy, the startling ratings for the revival of “Roseanne” and hilarious-to-appalling mash-up video of Sinclair Broadcasting anchors parroting a Orwellian script from upper management, we need to remind ourselves about how basic monetization drives our rancid tribalism.

The Sinclair video, a brilliant piece of agit-prop by a guy named Tim Burke at the sports web-site Deadspin, (which would be required reading if only for Minnesota native Drew Magary), went viral in about an hour late last week. It is the sort of thing that will laser-etch itself on the reputation of every Sinclair anchor who agreed to perform it. Something so robotic, so herd-like and craven will remain a millstone on their well-coiffured heads for the remainder of their careers. (To date, I see only one Sinclair anchor, in liberal Seattle, who has dared make any criticism of her employer.)

Having spent years observing the folkways and the compromises local TV news personalities make to sustain what still are well-paying jobs, I gotta say laying their faces out there and reading a double-think script ordered by the home office doesn’t surprise me in the least. It is what they are paid to do. The local TV anchor gig is far (far) less about journalism than it is about acting out the marketing strategies of CEOs and boards of directors.

I no longer have access to the deeper internals of Nielsen ratings, but a bit like newspapers, the broad audience for your local TV news was on the decline 15 years ago and there’s no indication that has stopped. (The most reliable figure shows a 31% decline in audience for local TV news since 2007.) But even back then, local TV news was very much a demographics game, designed (scripted and performed) for the primary consumer in traditional households … thirty-something “soccer moms”, with a kind of ancillary focus on an older audience holding hard to loyalties to their favorite hometown TV “stars”.

What’s fascinated me in the past few days, with the return of “Roseanne” on ABC and Sinclair’s Trump-echoing about “false news”, is how much traditional network television — by that I mean primetime sitcoms and dramas — and the local news that bookends are becoming segmented and segregated for service to specific tribal attitudes, like just about everything else in 2018 media.

Despite the high-minded sounding rhetoric from Sinclair’s VP for news, there’s nothing remotely unbiased about the company’s mission as it buys up more and more local TV stations.

For example:

Says Olivia Nuzzi in New York magazine today: “David Smith, the executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, said he dislikes and fundamentally distrusts the print media, which he believes ‘serves no real purpose ‘. In e-mails to New York, Smith said that print — as in newspapers and magazines — is a reality-distorting tool of leftists. Print media, he said, has ‘no credibility’ and no relevance.

‘I must tell that in all the 45 plus years I have been in the media business I have never seen a single article about us that is reflective of reality especially in today’s world with the shameful political environment and generally complete lack of integrity. Facts and truth have been lost for a long time and likely to never return’, Smith said.

‘The print media is so left-wing as to be meaningless dribble which accounts for why the industry is and will fade away. Just no credibility.”

Good lord.

It would be so refreshing if Sinclair would simply step up and say, “Yeah, we’re your Trump TV group. You like Trump? Stick with us. We’ll give you news that will reassure you you’re on to something yuge and great.”

Sinclair wants to ride/exploit the Trump crest among his believers. It sees good money to be made — shareholder value — serving the preferences (ok, “biases”) of conservative viewers, in particular viewers who maintain a loyalty to traditional network programming and the traditional forms of “news”.

And folks, there’s no law against that. It is, as I like to say, The First Rule of Show Biz: “Give the People What They Want.”  Or, to fine tune that a bit, “Figure out where the audience is for the story you want to tell and drag them into your tent.”

What I’d be interested in seeing today is a survey about the political leanings of the folks Sinclair is betting on — tradition-oriented entertainment and news consumers — as well as the millions of others (and counting) who have largely given up on primetime network TV and local TV news in favor of content that is both more “adult” and, as news goes, less worried about being accused of bias. I’m guessing your the audiences for network and cable (other than FoxNews) is now definably tribal.

I say this as someone who never watched entire episode of “Roseanne” in its hey day, (and I was a TV critic at the time), and hasn’t watched a primetime network show since “Lost” went off the air. For good reason Sinclair Broadcasting has no interest in me. But neither does it have any interest in all the rest of you who have migrated over to Netflix, FX, AMC, HBO, MSNBC, podcasts and the vast, burgeoning universe of alternatives to … stale, timid tradition.

Likewise, my (and I suspect a lot of your) consumption of local TV news has cratered over the past decade. Simply put, local TV news a product that has negligible value to a news consumer like me. (That is to say: Smug, cranky, aged liberal elitist.) Everything about local TV news is compromised to avoid stirring conflict from any quarter. The fact that almost no local TV newscast anywhere in the country dares assert and regularly remind viewers about the human impact on climate change is as conclusive an example as you need for the scripted, tightly coordinated insipidness of the overall product.

But … there is an audience that remains simultaneously resistant to “adult” entertainment and can be reassured by the blandness and celebrity appeal of local TV personalities. That crowd may continue to wane. (“Die off” is a more apt description.) But the bet by Sinclair as it buys up local stations and imposes highly centralized editorial content and viewpoint on them, mirrors what the networks themselves are no doubt looking to capture in the wake of “Roseanne’s” fire. Namely, cash in on Trumpist America while it is still a hardened, easily-defined tribe.

(I predict a Ted Nugent-Scott Baio sit-com in the near future).

There’s got to be at least another decade worth of good profits in giving traditional America what it wants to see.

State of the Obamacare Debate

Posted on by

I’m too uninspired to write anything new, and am about to go on vacation, so I’m just posting the best recent distillation I have seen of the state of that Song That Never Ends, the Obamacare debate.

Take it away, Jonathan Chait from the New York magazine:

Republicans Finally Admit Why They Really Hate Obamacare

By JONATHAN CHAIT

Conservatives spent years predicting Obamacare would collapse in all manner of gloomy scenarios. But those predictions all occurred in the run-up to the law coming on-line, on the basis of sketchy, preliminary data or pure conjecture. But in the months since the law has come into effect, a steady stream of far more solid data has come in, and the doomsaying predictions are being hunted to extinction. The right’s ideological objections to Obamacare remain, but I can’t think of a single practical analytic claim they made that still looks correct.

Just within the last week, numerous predictions of Obamacare skeptics have suffered ignominious deaths. Consider a few:

1. Obamacare is mostly just signing up customers who already had insurance. The basis for this claim was a preliminary survey conducted by McKinsey last year, well before the first enrollment period for Obamacare was complete. It generated massive coverage in the right-wing media. Since then, newer data has shown much higher figures. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey finds that 57 percent of enrollees lacked insurance previously.

2. Obamacare isn’t even significantly reducing the ranks of the uninsured. This claim built on the previous one — it combined the prediction few people would sign up for new coverage with the prediction that those who did were mostly insured. “CBO has projected that 14 million previously uninsured Americans would gain coverage under the law. With about ten weeks left in this year’s enrollment period, we’re looking at a coverage expansion of less than a million,” suggested Republican health-care adviser Avik Roy.

Obamacare_uninsured_decline_chartMeasuring the population lacking insurance is historically complex and imprecise, but we now have a bevy of measures showing that Obamacare has already made a huge dent in the uninsured population. Gallup has showed the uninsured rate dropping by about a quarter. A report finds the uninsured rate in Minnesota has fallen by 40 percent. A study of numerous cities by the Robert Woods Johnson foundation projections projects declines of about 60 percent by 2016 in municipalities whose states expanded Medicaid, and half that in states where Republicans have maintained the party’s boycott of Obamacare.

3. Insurance will be so expensive that few people will want to buy it. We spent weeks and weeks debating “rate shock.” Also, nope. The average plan purchased on exchanges costs customers only $82 a month. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey of people who used to have individual insurance and now have the regulated insurance on the exchanges — finds that the number of customers reporting lower premiums exceeds the number paying higher premiums.

Obamacare_premiums_char

4. But premiums will shoot up next year! As premiums have turned out to be cheap — indeed, cheaper than initially projected — Obamacare skeptics slowly retreated to a new prediction: Rates would rise next year.

Another nope. As state-by-state information trickles in, it appears conservatives won’t get the premium spike next year, either. Insurers are jumping into the market, putting downward pressure on prices. Expected premium increases appear to be on par with, or perhaps a bit lower than, historic levels:

Will all this data produce a grand bipartisan consensus on Obamacare? Of course not. Nor should it. The practical objections to Obamacare are collapsing, but the philosophical ones remain in place. Suppose you strongly objected to the idea that your city should own a bunch of buildings where people can go borrow books for free. (Some people do!) If you couldn’t persuade a majority of fellow citizens of your conceptual objections to libraries, you might try arguing that the library scheme was doomed to collapse in cost overruns, or that nobody would ever use them, or that shelves of heavy books would be routinely toppling over and killing small children. But the fact is that running buildings where people can check out books, and running exchanges where people can purchase basic health insurance packages, are both things that governments can do.

And so conservative objections to Obamacare are finally turning from the practical to the philosophical. In response to reports that Obamacare insurance turns out to be affordable, Roy, who has spent months warning of rate shock, mocks that “other people’s money will pay for it.” Conservative columnist Byron York likewise argues “Obamacare’s ‘good news’ applies only to the poor.”

It is true that Obamacare is far more helpful to people lower down the income scale. The poorest people get Medicaid, which is free. Those higher up the income ladder get tax credits, which phase out at $45,000 a year for an individual, and $94,000 a year for a family of four. (I wouldn’t call people earning under those levels “poor.”) Of course, people who get employer-sponsored insurance also get their coverage paid for with “other peoples’ money.” The difference is that employer-sponsored insurance uses a tax deduction, which gives the largest benefits to those who earn the most money, as opposed to Obamacare’s sliding scale tax credit, which gives the most to those who earn the least.

But at least conservatives are now representing their true bedrock position on Obamacare. It is largely a transfer program benefitting people who either don’t have enough money, or pose too high a health risk, to bear the cost of their own medical care. Conservatives don’t like transfer programs because they require helping the less fortunate with other peoples’ money.

– Loveland, but really Chait