Leave it to Matt Lauer and to a lesser extent Joe Scarborough to give America an unbiased view of Sarah Palin. (not)
From Eyeblast.tv
I may not be a big Palin fan, but the mainstream media's attacks on her are one-sided and inaccurate for the most part and they definitely had their long knives out for her and the Tea Party movement.
So much for a fair and balanced media.
A survey of magazines that took an axe to their subscription prices to keep subscribers from fleeing shows that nearly 75% of them lost readers anyway.
From AdAge.com
Magazines that cut their subscription prices to lower and lower levels may be hurting themselves in more ways than we knew.
The less money magazines collect from subscribers, the more publishers depend on advertiser demand for ad pages -- demand that plunged through the floor in the recession and does not seem likely to fully return. Super-low prices may also devalue magazines in the eyes of consumers, some have suggested.
But now it looks like lower and lower prices last decade haven't even roped in more readers. In many cases the magazines that went cheaper still wound up with fewer individually paid subscribers.
Nearly two-thirds of 344 magazines analyzed dropped their per-copy subscription prices between 2002 and the first half of 2009, but nearly 75% of those price-choppers also saw individually paid subscriptions decline anyway, according to an analysis of Audit Bureau of Circulations reports by Jack Hanrahan, the media-agency veteran who's now an industry consultant and publisher of the CircMatters newsletter.
"Paid individual subscriptions are dropping for a lot of titles that have decreased their subscription prices," Mr. Hanrahan said. "It means to me that single-copy sales are not the only thing we should be worried about as it relates to total circulation."
Not a Debbie Downer, but a realist
"It actually made me wary," Mr. Hanrahan said about his findings. "I'm not a Debbie Downer about the publishing business, but I also feel it's important to be a realist."
"What I really think is going on here is that circulations are bloated," he added. "They've been pushed beyond what would be natural demand."
Cheaper prices, in that case, might not have much effect. There are those, of course, that charge significant amounts for subscriptions. In the first half of last year, titles pricing subscriptions at more than $4 per issue included Endless Vacation, Harvard Business Review, Communication Arts, Foreign Arts, WoodenBoat, Fine Woodworking, Fine Cooking, Fine Gardening, Fine Homebuilding, American Scientist, Shooting Sportsman and Robb Report.
But for the most part magazine have hardly been pricing potential readers out of the market. Titles selling subscriptions below 75 cents a copy included US News & World Report, Parents, Newsweek, New York, Time, Woman's Day, Ladies' Home Journal and Family Circle.
Paid-subscription numbers will probably hold their own when the Audit Bureau of Circulations issues its report covering the second half of 2009 on Monday. But there are several components of the "paid" circulation category, as defined by the Audit Bureau's board, and different advertisers value those different components differently. It's not always clear, for example, whether a subscription that came with a couch or blender purchase provides as valuable a reader for advertisers as a subscription that a reader sought out and paid for herself.
At the same time, however, some in the industry have tried to improve their subscription strategies. Many publishers have reduced the paid circulation they guarantee to advertisers, bidding for better circulation economics and less of the marginal readership that advertisers may not want.
What is left out of this article is any mention of the impact the internet has had on the magazine business. Magazines are facing the same declining readership as newspapers because people can easily get much of their news for free via the internet and in the case of newsmagazines they are literally being scooped by users of Twitter, Facebook and other forms of social media.
My own magazine reading has declined substantially over the years and as our office shrinks to a more efficient level most magazine subscriptions will be cancelled and the ones that we do retain will be available only on an e-reader for the staff which should result in some cost savings.
U.S. News and World Report has already reduced the number of issues it publishes which makes it even less relevant than before and is the first step towards extinction.
Magazines will need to continue to retrench and focus their efforts on what their remaining readers want if they want to survive in this brave new world where the printing press is no longer king.
Everyone knows by now that the government will be conducting the census count this year and that it will have large political ramifications for the 2012 elections and beyond. But did they need to spend $2.5 million of our money to advertise it on the Super Bowl?
It's bad enough they blew a chunk of taxpayer dollars on the ad. What's even worse is that it was a terrible ad.
Audi's Super Bowl commercial on how green their new diesel fueled car left me and my family lol for showing the possibility of what lengths green zealots might go to.
While I think the commercial was brilliant for its parodying of the green police, I'm not sure the message of Audi's green car really hit the mark.
CNN plans to stake out the high ground in cable news.
From TVNewser
Marketwatch.com's Jon Friedman talks with Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes about his media empire -- from the future of the Time Inc. magazines to CNN's ratings woes and programming choices.
Bewkes insisted that CNN "has more viewers" who "watch for shorter periods of time" than its foes.
I pressed Bewkes on CNN's mission to present both sides of an issue. Yes, it's commendable for journalists to be open-minded, but -- again playing devil's advocate -- wouldn't CNN attract even more viewers if it amped up its broadcasts reports, like Fox and MSNBC often do?
"They're picking a side," Bewkes said of his rivals. "We have bigger ambitions than (leaning) left or right. We want to cover the news completely."
Plus, he suspects, "if we did too much partisan (broadcasting), we'd lose our high demographics." CNN believes it has a higher quality of viewers because it doesn't veer to the left or the right.
Bewkes feels strongly that CNN "is a very good business." He won't tinker with its format "if it means taking a partisan point of view -- one-third of the U.S. voters are independents. They don't want to see narrow-minded stuff."
CNN which lost the cable news crown years ago is still struggling to find a voice in an increasingly partisan and rancorous news bubble.
Bewkes is wrong to claim that being partisan would cost them their high demographics. Both Fox and MSNBC have shown that you can attract an audience when you have an actual opinion.
The time has long passed for cable news networks to try and present themselves as apolitical or non partisan. The viewers know that the media is biased either to the right or left depending on your view and they are more comfortable watching news when they know it is slanted in their direction.
Maybe CNN thinks Americans want news for the moderate middle but as their ratings have shown that group is a ratings wasteland. Plus if CNN thinks it can convince people that they are not leaning to one side or the other they are living in a fantasy world since they were the original left leaning network.
Obamamania in Washington D.C. has apparently run its course as the Obama store in Union Station has closed.
From the Washington Examiner
In case his approval ratings weren't proof enough, then maybe the overstock on Obama bobbleheads will make the case.
The Obama love affair is over.
Just a little more than a year ago, Obama gear was hot when tourists were bustling into the capital eager for a taste of the new commander in chief and a T-shirt as a keepsake. But it seems as Obama's luster has dimmed, the market for Obama goods has taken a beating.
One sign his brand just isn't selling? The Obama store in Union Station is all boarded up, according to U.S. News & World Report.
The question remains as to what took a bigger hit from the economy -- the Obama store or the Obama brand?
There is little doubt that the Obama sheen has worn off as job losses have mounted and legislation has stalled during Obama's first year in office. But I have long questioned the economics of a retailer which is tied to one figure even if it is one as popular as Obama initially was.
When George Bush was elected Republicans couldn't get enough of "43" merchandise at first. As his presidency wore on and the media's relentless attacks took hold, you couldn't give away Bush related merchandise. So there are some similarities here but the biggest difference is that Obama has come crashing down faster than almost any president in modern history making the Obama brand more of a liability than an asset.
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag gets a lesson in TARP from Sen. Judd Gregg.
From the Politico
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama proposed using $30 billion in bailout funds for small-business lending. He later repeated the idea in Nashua, N.H.
Both times, Obama said he would use bailout funds that were “repaid” to the government by financial firms — conjuring up the politically appealing image of taking money from a chastened Wall Street and sending it straight to Main Street.
But Obama’s description didn’t give an accurate picture of how he plans to pay for the new program. And his comments sowed controversy and confusion on Capitol Hill.
In reality, the administration is proposing taking $30 billion from the unspent portion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to seed the new initiative, not — as Obama’s language suggested — taking the funds from the approximately $170 billion that banks have returned to government coffers.
While that distinction might seems painfully technical, it carries significant political weight on Capitol Hill. The reason: The legislation creating TARP dictates that repaid funds must go to pay down the national debt.
The program as “originally outlined” was “totally inconsistent with the law,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said in an interview with POLITICO.
Earlier this week, Gregg accused Obama of trying to create a “slush fund” from the repaid TARP cash. And he tore into White House budget chief Peter Orszag based on the description that repaid TARP dollars would be used to fund it.
“You don't appear to understand the law! The law is very clear!” Gregg told Orszag during a hearing on the administration’s budget. He went on to read the TARP law to Orszag: “ ‘The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the treasury for the reduction of the public debt.’ It's not for a piggy bank because you're concerned about lending to small businesses… This money is to reduce the debt of our children!”
But it wasn’t just Republicans who had concerns. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who has been working with the administration to create a small-business program, said he sought clarification on the issue from the administration on Thursday.
“This is a major difference, particularly for some of my Republican colleagues,” Warner said. “It makes, I think, a stronger case that it fits within the footprint of the original TARP,” shoring up financial system and sending credit where it’s needed.
“And clearly one of the areas where credit is not moving is to small businesses,” Warner said.
White House officials didn’t say why Obama specifically talked of using “repaid” funds in both settings —including the State of the Union address, in which every word is carefully vetted.
But they say Obama didn’t intend to suggest that the actual repaid TARP funds would be used.
Obama's language much like Orszag's efforts to defend the White House show a complete lack of experience on the part of the administration which is one of the main reasons that they can't figure out how to move the country out of this recession.
Sen. Gregg's political career has been on the rise lately which is exactly the opposite of where it would have been had not withdrawn his nomination as Commerce Secretary in the Obama administration.
CNBC's Erin Burnett explains that the drop in the unemployment rate is not a true measure of the jobs picture in this country.
From Eyeblast.tv
Give Burnett credit for parsing the numbers to give a more accurate picture of unemployment in the U.S.
Until the administration realizes that cutting taxes and not increasing spending is the best way to stimulate the economy and thus creating jobs in the process is the best method for fixing the problem the unemployment rate will continue to remain high and the economy sluggish at best.
Al Jazeera English reported on the first Tea Party convention in Nashville this weekend but highlighting the divisions in the movement and mocking the location of the event.
While recognizing the Tea Party movement as a force to be reckoned with Al Jazeera falls in line with the rest of the mainstream media in doing their level best to sow seeds of doubt in the hopes of derailing the movement before the November elections.
MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann disputed earlier news reports that his ratings have dropped.
The ratings in question are the key 25-54 demographic which advertsiers crave and commands the highest rates. Olbermann never refuted that fact but instead glossed it over with some doublespeak about a ratings increase. Yes his show could have grown while the key demo declined, but since this demo brings in the money and he is losing viewers in the group his show indeed is in danger of being canceled.
NewsBusters had this to say about Olbermann
Asked about Olbermann's plummeting ratings--they have declined 44 percent since last year--MSNBC President Phil Griffin cleverly invoked the cable network's slogan, saying MSNBC is still "the place for politics."
Griffin added, "there are times when politics does great, and there are times when it doesn't." Apparently there are also times when it does great on Fox, but not on MSNBC, like, say, right now. Ratings for the "O'Reilly Factor", Olbermann's 8 p.m. competition, have soared 55 percent during the past year, making it by far the most watched cable news show during that time slot. "Countdown", meanwhile, languishes just behind HLN's Nancy Grace in the coveted 25-54 demographic.
Not exactly a vote of confidence for Keith now is it?
