There are a bunch of reasons As for the heads themselves, It cannot happen soon enough. A decade ago, sensing that Five years ago, the Internet At the same time that big-time Needless to say, best-customers The dumbing-down of television Reduced to the role of performance This debacle, which will John Ellis runs the Fox
why talking heads have fallen on hard times. For starters, the vast majority
of people are disinterested in the subject matter. Politics, as a category,
has never been less relevant to so many. But it’s not just the category
that is driving everyone to reach for the clicker, it’s the talking heads
themselves and the marketplace they’ve come to occupy.
has there ever been a more tedious, tendentious collection of self-involved
people? When was the last time something one of them said actually struck you
as interesting or original? Thankfully, the 2000 Democratic convention may mark
their last great collective gathering. By the year 2004, it is likely that the
Internet will have deconstructed the market for political news and information
There are four functions that the news media performs. The first is reportage.
The second is background or context. The third is analysis. The fourth is opinion.
The first function, reportage, has been commoditized; initially by an explosion
of media outlets and more recently by Internet technology. Most of us now get
our news from the Associated Press or Reuters or the Dow Jones Business Wire.
Most television viewers also get their news in "packages" from commodity
providers and network consortiums. Original news gathering and the fabled, far-flung
foreign bureaus of yore have all but disappeared.
the market was moving away from them, news organizations hired consulting firms
like McKinsey & Co. to help them understand the new dynamics of the news
marketplace. They were told that if they wanted to remain competitive, they
would have to offer something more than the basic commodity product–news–to
their readership and viewers, and that they would have to increase the productivity
of their talent. The cheapest way to do that was to add context, analysis and
opinion into the mix of offerings. Thus op-ed pages were expanded in newspapers,
columnists were added to newsmagazines, commentators became a staple of television
came along and blew apart the news media’s value chain. Yahoo! aggregated
news and information, analysis and commentary from virtually every extant news
source and packaged it into a "home page" service that delivered exactly
the news and information one chose to read, in the order one chose to read it,
in a constantly updating format. In less than five years, Yahoo! became America’s
leading news service, obliterating the competition. More than 100 million people
around the world now visit Yahoo! every month. That’s a "circulation
base" exactly 10 times larger than the audience for the CBS Evening
News with Dan Rather on any given night.
navigators like Yahoo! were providing a mass audience with personalized news,
everyone else started using the Internet to deliver analysis and opinion to
niche markets. Online services as disparate as Slate and The Wall
Street Journal’s OpinionJournal.com arose. Established news organizations
got into the act, digitizing their content and throwing it up on the Web. Moribund
magazines like National Review rejuvenated themselves by competing through
the Web. And in no time, with a click of a mouse, everyone suddenly had access
to the highest quality commentary and opinion, available at any time of night
or day. All they had to do was get on the Web.
(those whom marketers view as the most attractive targets for their products)
flocked to the Web. That’s where the quality was and that’s where
they went. This cut the legs out from under the traditional media in general
and television news media in particular. The tv people weren’t in the news-gathering
business anymore (everybody already knew what they were going to report). And
they weren’t nearly as good at the analysis/commentary business as their
Web competition. So they went to the only place they could go: down-market.
This begat endless coverage of not-news–of O.J. Simpson and celebrities
and zone diets and gossip. And as they descended down the ladder of taste and
relevance, television news media became indistinguishable from the competitive
set it now occupied. The only difference between CBS News’ coverage of
the O.J. Simpson trial and The National Enquirer’s coverage of O.J.
was that the National Enquirer’s coverage was better.
news put the talking heads in an unhappy place. The people they wanted to talk
to and influence weren’t watching or listening. The audience that remained
wanted it to be more like professional wrestling–cheap shots, angry outbursts
and hammerlocks included. Which is what is served on the menu today. Shows like
Crossfire and Capital Gang and Hardball aren’t about
analysis or commentary or value-added information. They’re about conflict
and contention. Talking heads that don’t perform accordingly don’t
get asked back.
artists, the talking heads have grown twisted and cynical. They know that we
know that it’s all a shuck. They know that we know they’re not providing
anything valuable. It’s just showbiz. The only reason they keep doing it
is ego-gratification and the possibility that it might lead to some high-paying
speaking engagements. All the while, the audience continues to dwindle. Less
than 375,000 households (according to Nielsen research) tuned into MSNBC’s
coverage of the Republican convention, despite the fact that NBC lent its most
highly valued assets (Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell and Lisa Myers)
to the cable service. Generally speaking, cable networks have to average about
750,000 or more households to break even on their programming. CBS’ coverage,
what there was of it, was an even bigger disaster, given that the network is
seen in 99 percent of all households and was once considered the premier television
news source in the country. CNN’s ratings were also down from four years
replay itself this week at the Democratic convention, renders the talking heads
meaningless. Thirty years ago, Vice President Spiro Agnew raged against the
original talking heads, calling them "nattering nabobs of negativism"
and effete elitists. He did so at the direction of President Nixon, who thought
the heads posed a political threat. No one thinks of them that way anymore.
They’ve become performing seals; all bark and no bite.
News Channel Decision Desk on election nights and is a first cousin of George
W. Bush. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
There are a bunch of reasons
As for the heads themselves,
It cannot happen soon enough.
A decade ago, sensing that
Five years ago, the Internet
At the same time that big-time
Needless to say, best-customers
The dumbing-down of television
Reduced to the role of performance
This debacle, which will
John Ellis runs the Fox