|
Here's the thing... the news, whether it is on paper, television or radio, has always been about selling advertising space. Even the earliest broadsheets sold ad space.
Yes, the editorial department likes to imagine it is the driving force of any news team but the thing that let's them do what they do is ad sales.
I work in television. I can tell you that generating revenue influences just about every decision I make when it comes to the content I place on my channel. I have to be aware of the number of eyeballs I am going to capture with a show we might acquire (as this is important to our potential advertisers). We also have to get creative with how ads are placed on the channel. Ad revenue is a finite thing and there are many channels that want this finite resource. If we do not come up with new ways to bring a client's product to our viewers, someone else will.
Back in the day, when it was on Free Terrestrial TV that was available, a broadcaster could capture 10s of millions of viewers by putting up just about any old drek (does anyone really think Ed Sullivan was all that exciting?). Advertisers paid big money for this. Today, the television universe has splintered into a myriad of channels on Terrerstrial, Cable, Satellite, IPTV, Internet, etc. (not to mention advances such as TIVO that allow people to skip ads). The ad dollars are still there but they are divided up. Each channel or broadcaster has a smaller share of the audience and they are feeling this on the bottom line.
Ultimately someone has to pay for this entertainment.
Is the US ready to go the route of the UK and impose annual television licenses on their populace? These license fees go to fund the BBC. The BBC has no ads.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
|