Curs

Comunicare audiovizual
2009
1
Cuprins
Introducere curs comunicare audiovizual ....................................................................... pag. 3
Scurt istorie a etimologiei cuvntului imagine .............................................................. pag. 4
Imaginea i puterea .......................................................................................................... pag. 5
2006 !endin"e #n pu$licitate ......................................................................................... pag. %
2006 !endin"e #n &urnalismul american ......................................................................... pag. '
(ligar)ii media i puterile lor miraculoase ..................................................................... pag.12
Scurt istorie a apari"iei i evolu"iei televiziunii ............................................................. pag. 23
Sisteme de codare a semnalului de imagine ..................................................................... pag. 31
!eleviziunea de #nalt de*ini"ie ........................................................................................ pag. 35
+ramatica de *ilm i de televiziune .................................................................................. pag.
3'
!e)nici de editare ............................................................................................................. pag.
44
,anevrarea timpului #n cadrul procesului de editare ....................................................... pag.
4-
.ditarea i utilizarea sunetului .......................................................................................... pag.
4'
/lte reguli0 sugestii i s*aturi privind *ilmarea0 editarea i compozi"ia cadrului ............... pag.
52
1ompozi"ia cadrului ..........................................................................................................
pag.5'
.ditarea nonlinear .......................................................................................................... pag. --
2tilizarea luminii #n televiziune ....................................................................................... pag.
%3
Interviul ............................................................................................................................ pag.
'0
1aracteristicile mesa&ului audiovizual ............................................................................. pag. '%
!ransmisiile #n direct ........................................................................................................ pag.'%
!e)nici de redactare a te3telor pentru televiziune ........................................................... pag.
101
Scrisul pentru televiziune ............................................................................................... pag.
10-
/naliza audien"ei i mar4etingul de televiziune ............................................................. pag.
111
,etode de cercetare a audien"ei ..................................................................................... pag.
114
+)id de analiz i interpretare a programelor de televiziune ......................................... pag.
11'
5espre e3amen ............................................................................................................... pag.
122
!eme pentru diserta"ie .................................................................................................... pag.
124
,odel de test pentru e3amen *r rspunsuri ................................................................. pag.
125
,odel de test pentru e3amen cu rspunsuri .................................................................... pag.
126
6i$liogra*ie .................................................................................................................... pag. 130
6i$liogra*ie general ...................................................................................................... pag.
131
,aterial au3iliar pentru traduceri ................................................................................... pag.
Introducere curs comunicare audiovizual
1ursul de comunicare audiovizual din anul II se concentreaz asupra cunotin"elor despre
produc"ia de televiziune0 #ntruct dezvoltarea te)nologiei digitale a dus la modi*icarea
pro*und a peisa&ului audiovizual interna"ional. Imaginea de televiziune este din ce #n ce mai
accesi$il0 devenind o component *undamental a comunicrii. 7roduc"ia de opere
audiovizuale di*uzate de re"elele de televiziune s8a dezvoltat i diversi*icat0 comunicarea
e3tern a organiza"iilor utilizeaz din ce #n ce mai mult imaginea de televiziune0 paginile de
9e$ ale organiza"iilor *olosesc intens imaginile de televiziune0 imagilile virtuale sau
te)nologia flash ceea duce la apari"ia unor secven"e animate. 2n e3emplu spectaculos #l
reprezint paginile de 9e$ ale companiilor care produc i comercializeaz automo$ile.
7rezentarea tradi"ional a *ielor cu caracteristicile te)nice ale automo$ilelor este completat
sau c)iar #nlocuit cu imagini #n micare. :n ;omnia un e3emplu recent0 20060 este campania
de lansare a modelului Seat <eon0 care a $ene*iciat de o pagin de 9e$ proprie cu imagini #n
micare0 realizate #n sistem flash.
1unotin"ele prezentate #n acest curs0 despre imaginea de televiziune i te)nica scrisului
pentru televiziune0 permit realizarea unor produc"ii de televiziune0 din punct de vedere al
duratei0 de la nivelul unui clip pn la nivel de reporta& i documentar.
1omunicarea audiovizual0 #ntr8o *acultate de comunicare0 poate *i a$ordat dintr8o du$l
perspectiv= din perspectiva rela"iilor pu$lice0 care este perspectiva comunicatorului0 cel care
di*uzeaz in*orma"ii i perspectiva &urnalitilor0 cei care primesc0 prelucreaz i di*uzeaz
pu$licului in*orma"iile primite. ;esponsa$ilitatea *a" de pu$lic0 att a comunicatorilor ct i a
&urnalitilor este uria. >ecunoaterea modului de reac"ie a pu$licului la in*orma"iile di*uzate0
poate crea situa"ii dramatice.
7rezentm in continuare dou e3emple din istoria mass8media care demonstreaz *or"a
e3traordinar a mi&loacelor de comunicare in mas= piesa radio*onic ?;z$oiul lumilor@0
dramatizare de (rson Aells dup romanul lui Ber$ert +. Aells. .misiunea s8a di*uzat #n seara
zilei de 30 octom$rie 1'3%0 de postul de radio 1olum$ia C16SD. 5in 6 milioane de asculttori0
1 milion a pornit la drum0 1 milion de oameni panica"i. .misiunea s8a di*uzat #n paralel cu o
emisiune de mare succes a unui post rival0 >610 care avea la acea or una dintre cele mai
populare emisiuni de variet"i ale vremii0 cu 1)arlie ,c 1art)E. 7ersona&ul era de un comic
grosier i smulgea )o)ote de rs milioanelor de ascultatori. :n atmos*era tensionat a anului
1'3% 1)arlie ,c 1art)E #i a&uta pe oameni s se destind0 pe cand (rson Aells0 nu. 5e aceea
oamenii l8au pre*erat pe ,c 1art)E. 5up ce s8a terminat emisiunea de divertisment0 >618ul
a introdus un moment pu$licitar0 pltit de un renumit trust al ca*elei. /tunci radio asculttorii
au comutat pe lungimea de und a 1olum$iei0 nimerind #n mi&locul ?rz$oiului lumilor@.
Fiind vor$a despre o emisiune realizat su$ *orma unui magazin de actualit"i i nee3istnd
mesa&e de avertizare di*uzate periodic0 asculttorii0 care nu au urmrit de la #nceput emisiunea
lui Aells0 au con*undat imaginarul piesei de teatru radio*onic cu realitatea. /m evocat acest
moment memora$il din istoria radioului pentru ca ilustreaz *oarte $ine capacitatea de
in*luen"are pe care a avut8o acest canal de comunicare pn la apari"ia televiziunii. /stzi
radioul a *ost detronat de televiziune0 din punct de vedere al *or"ei de impact emo"ional asupra
oamenilor. ,ai tre$uie s su$liniem un aspect *oarte important= (rson Aells nu a dorit s
produc un asemenea )aos. Baosul a *ost rezultatul con&uncturii #n care asculttorii au primit
mesa&ul piesei de teatru radio*onic0 care0 repetm0 nu a avut semnale de avertizare0 &ingle8uri0
cortine sonore0 etc. /ceast situa"ie poate *i considerat i un e3emplu de zapping #n epoca
radioului. 1ontinum acum cu un alt e3emplu de in*luen" asupra pu$licului0 de data aceasta a
televiziunii. 5i*eren"a *a" de cazul lui Aells este *undamental= aici s8a dorit in*luen"area
masiv a pu$liculuiG :nainte de #nceperea primului
3
rz$oi din +ol*0 doar apro3imativ 15H dintre americani sus"ineau interven"ia american.
Fostul preedinte +eorge 6us) a pornit prin "ar #ntr8un lung turneu0 cu scopul de a convinge
na"iunea american s sus"in intrarea #n rz$oi. :n aceast perioad0 televiziunile americane
au di*uzat un reporta& dramatic #n care o tnr student ira4ian povestete #n *a"a camerelor
de luat vederi despre uciderea nou8nscu"ilor din maternit"ile 4u9aitiene de ctre solda"ii
ira4ieni. 7rotec"ia copilului este o tem deose$it de sensi$il #n S2/0 ceea ce a *cut ca
reporta&ul s ai$ un ecou e3traordinar. +eorge 6us) s8a re*erit de mai multe ori la acest
reporta& #n turneul su0 utilizndu8l ca argument #n *avoarea intrrii /mericii #n rz$oi. 5up
ce numrul americanilor care sus"ineau interven"ia a a&uns la %4H0 s8a declanat rz$oiul.
2lterior s8a dovedit c povestea a *ost un monta&0 studenta *iind de *apt *iica am$asadorului
Iu9aitului #n S2/. 7ovestea apar"ine companiei Bill J Ino9lton i a costat 10 milioane de
dolari. /ceasta a *ost o stralucit opera"iune de rela"ii pu$lice Ccompania Bill J Ino9lton era
la vremea respectiv a doua companie de 7; din /mericaD.
Imaginea0 #n general i #n special imaginea de televiziune0 nu este att o iluzie privind
cunoaterea0 alt*el spus o iluzie a *aptului c o persoan cunoate un anumit lucru0 pe ct este
un mi&loc suplimentar de a crea individului o anumit team de realitate. /st*el0 imaginile
despre catastro*e sau accidente produse la distan" de individ i di*uzate #n &urnalele de tiri i
#n diverse documentare di*uzate de canale specializate de televiziune C5iscoverE0 /nimal
7lanet0 BistorED0 creeaz o anumit team0 concomitent cu *aptul c individul se simte #n
siguran" prin *aptul c aceste evenimente se petrec departe de el.
Scurt istorie a etimologiei cuvntului imagine
1uvntul Kimagine@ a colec"ionat de8a lungul istoriei accep"iuni multiple. 1uvntul
Kimagine@ vine din lim$a latin0 de la imago, imaginis care #nseamn K#n loc de@. /nticii
utilizau sinonime apro3imative precum efigie sau simulacru. +recii aveau #n voca$ular
cuvntul eikon0 prin care denumeau Kceea ce reproduce0 ceea ce reprezint0 #n sensul c red
prezentului o anumit realitate@. /cest cuvnt a generat cali*icativul Kiconic@. +recii aveau i
un sinonim apropiat ca sens0 cuvntul Keidolon@0 care a generat #n lim$a *rancez su$stantivul
Kidole@. :n accep"iunea comun0 cuvntul Kimagine@ se re*er la o reprezentare plastic0 mai
e3act gra*ic0 a unui o$iect sau a unui concept. 5ar cuvntul Kimagine@ are mai multe sensuri0
#n *unc"ie de domeniul #n care este utilizat. /s*el0 avem Kimagine luminoas@ care este
studiat de *izicieni. /ceast imagine este *ormat din cuante de energie0 *otoni0 emise sau
re*lectate de corpuri. :n acest sens0 tot ceea ce noi putem s vedem este imaginea luminoas
emis de soare sau de un o$iect incandescent. 1uvntul Kimagine@ se poate re*eri i la
imaginea retinian0 rezultat #n urma reac"iei celulelor nervoase *otosensi$ile din retin.
Studiul acestui tip de imagine este realizat de medici0 $iologi0 specialiti #n *iziologie0 i nu #n
ultimul rnd de $iote)nologi0 care analizeaz structura anatomic a retinei i modul de
*unc"ionare a celulelor nervoase specializate. ;ezultatele acestor studii sunt valori*icate #n
c)irurgia oc)iului i #n cercetrile privind redarea vederii prin dispozitive electronice0 cu
inter*a" $iologic.
:n acelai timp0 cuvntul Kimagine@ poate avea #n"elesul de Kimagine mental@0 ceea ce
creierul uman reconstituie #n urma prelucrrii in*orma"iilor transmise de retin i a
in*orma"iilor e3istente #n memoria individului. .ste un domeniu comple30 unde este di*icil de
separat ceea ce este strict $iologie i ceea ce este in*luen"a e3perien"ei sociale a individului.
1uvntul Kimagine@ se mai poate re*eri i la Kimaginea *izic@0 imaginea unui o$iect0 a unei
persoane0 a mediului am$iant0 imaginea *iind *i3at pe )rtie *otogra*ic sau pe o pnz de
pictur.
4
5ac ar tre$ui s rezumm toate accep"iunile cuvntului Kimgine@ prezentate #n acest
capitol0 o$"inem urmtorul ta$lou=
1. imaginea ca suport *izic=
L Imaginea de orice tip0 imagiMue.
L Func"ional0 de tip iconic.
2. imaginea mental=
L 1odi*icat0 la intrare0 imaginar
L .vocativ0 la ieire0 imagina"ie. Imaginea este la *el de vec)e ca societatea uman. :ns
despre imaginea *unc"ional se poate vor$i doar dup apari"ia mi&loacelor de comunicare #n
mas.
Imaginea i puterea
Studiul imaginii i mai ales utilizarea imaginii preocup omenirea de *oarte mult vreme.
/ceasta a #ndeplint di*erite *unc"ii0 de8a lungul timpului. :n religie0 imaginea a *ost utilizat ca
intermediar #ntre divinitate i oameni. :n art0 imaginea permite e3primarea universului
interior al individului. 5e *oarte multe ori operele de art au *ost studiate de ec)ipe comple3e0
care au permis depistarea di*eritelor a*ec"iuni de care su*ereau artitii respectivi. :n societ"ile
moderne0 imaginea este #n acelai timp in*orma"ie care orienteaz in decizii individul0
propagand. :n acest caz0 imaginea permite comunicarea0 in*ormarea0 divertismentul0
persuadarea. Fiind o Kdedu$lare@ a realit"ii0 imaginea poate *i perceput0 #n anumite situa"ii0
ca *iind realitatea #nsi.
(amenii au descoperit importan"a imaginii *unc"ionale #naintea al*a$etului0 care a permis
*i3area istoriei #n scris. Bomo sapiens din paleolitic a desenat imagini cu 100.000 de ani #n
urm. :n secolul al NIN8lea0 mai e3act #n anul 1%63 au *ost descoperite cele$rele desene din
peterile de la /ltamira CSpaniaD0 iar #n 1'40 desenele din petera <ascau3 CFran"aD. Imaginile
sunt grandioase prin *rumuse"ea lor i impresionante prin dimensiuni. :n petera de la <ascau3
pot *i vzu"i tauri cu lungimi de pn la cinci metri.
5e8a lungul timpului0 prin intermediul imaginilor *unc"ionale unii oameni au #ncercat s8i
proiecteze ideile #n contiin"a contemporanilor i s marc)eze trecerea lor prin aceast lume0
al"ii au #ncercat s8i ane3ze lumea prin intermediul imaginilor. 7roiectarea #n viitor i
ane3area prezentului0 captarea acestuia0 sunt acte care se $azeaz pe voin". /st*el0 constatm
c oamenii s8au servit de imagini att pentru a ac"iona asupra materiei ct i ca instrument de
acces la cunoatere.
:n &urul anului 1300 #.B.0 pu"in dup domnia marelui *araon ;amses al II8lea s8a produs un
eveniment important0 cu mare rezonan" #n istoria omenirii. ,oise a criticat puterea
imaginilor0 pentru c ele transmit #n mod eronat realitatea lui 5umnezeu. 6i$lia relateaz pe
scurt e3plozia de mnie a lui ,oise atunci cnd0 a*la"i #n .3od0 tinerii si discipoli au creat un
vi"el de aur0 care deturna credin"a0 adora"ia de la adevratul 5umnezeu. 5iscipolii lui Isus au
adoptat un punct de vedere similar. <uca .vang)elistul Cactele apostolilor0 1-020D se adreseaz
ast*el apostolului 7etru= K5ac noi suntem din spi"a 5omnului0 nu tre$uie s credem c
divinitatea tre$uie s *ie asemntoare o$iectelor din aur0 argint0 piatr0 prelucrate artistic de
mna omului@.
;omanii au sesizat *oarte repede puterea imaginii. :mpra"ii i8au *i3at portretele pe
monede care se rspndeau prin comer" #n toate col"urile imperiului.
Imaginea a creat de multe ori controverse i c)iar con*licte #ntre cretini. :n anul -260
#mpratul $izantin <eon al III8lea Isaurianul a proclamat un edict #mpotriva utilizrii
icoanelor0 distrugnd #n acelai timp o *resc din palatul regal #n care era reprezentat Isus
1ristos. /cest gest avea #ns #n spate motive strict politice= #mpratul ar *i pre*erat ca propria
5
sa imagine s circule su$ *orm de icoane. / urmat o revolt i #n anul -%-0 cu ocazia celui de8
al doilea 1onciliu dela >iceea0 utilizarea icoanelor a *ost resta$ilit i iconoclasmul a *ost
declarat erezie.
Imaginea *ost perceput i utilizat di*erit de $iserica catolic i de $iserica ortodo3 #n
mileniul al II8lea. 6iserica catolic a considerat c imaginea este ca o $i$lie pentru anal*a$e"i0
pe cnd $iserica ortodo3 a supralicitat componenta de Kmister@ pe care o induc icoanele i
care permite apro*undarea credin"ei.
:n sc)im$0 Islamul a respins imaginile ca reprezentare religioas0 nimeni neavnd dreptul
de a8l reprezenta pe 7ro*et sau crea"iile acestuia. /ceast interdic"ie a generat o lung tradi"ie
decorativ pro*und original0 ara$escurile.
:n toat istoria omenirii0 castele dominante au sesizat importan"a imaginii pentru
conservarea propriei puteri i a statutului social. :n .vul ,ediu0 pn la revolu"ia *rancez0
imaginea a *ost utilizat de puterea religioas pentru a o$"ine spri&inul popula"iei #n *avoarea
marilor construc"ii0 catedralele. 5up revolu"ia *rancez0 puterea imaginii s8a deplasat #n
minile laicilor0 permi"nd apari"ia comentariului iconic social i politic. /*iul0 aprut #n
timpul revolu"iei *ranceze0 a *ost primul instrument prin care imaginea a *ost manipulat de
laici0 iar caricatura a *ost utilzat #nc de la apari"ia sa de ctre opozi"ie. /*iul s8a rspndit
intens odat cu apari"ia litogra*iei i a presei tiprite CpennE papersD. :n acel moment critica
social a #nceput s se mani*este cu *erocitate0 am putea spune0 privind al$ume cu litogra*ii de
epoc. 1aricaturile0 portretele retuate0 desenele satirice nu ocoleau nici o persoan
important. 1el mai cele$ru reprezentant al perioadei de aur al comentariului iconic a *ost *r
#ndoial pictorul i litogra*ul *rancez Bonore 5aumier. /cesta nu a mena&at puterea0 pn #n
cele mai #nalte s*ereO el a criticat *r #ncetare e3croc)eriile $anc)erilor0 ale avoca"ilor0 toate
mani*estrile de ipocrizie i prostia contemporanilor si.
/pari"ia a*iului0 a caricaturii i a presei0 la s*ritul secolului al NPIII8lea i la #nceputul
secoluli al NIN8lea a #nsemnat i #nceputurile propagandei. :ns despre propagand se poate
poate vor$i a$ia odat cu primul rz$oi mondial.
7ropaganda0 ca i pu$licitatea0 este o *orm de comunicare persuasiv0 uneori c)iar
manipulatoare. 7u$licitatea are ca scop vnzarea produselor i a serviciilor. 7ropaganda vinde
idei i oameni C#n sensul acceptrii unor persoane #n anumite pozi"ii sociale0 #n anumite
*unc"iiD. /a cum propaganda utilizeaz retorica mai mult dect logica0 aa utilizeaz constant
imaginea. /s*el a aprut o adevrat imagerie politic0 ca rezultat al campanilor politice i a
activit"ii de mar4eting politic. /vnd #n vedere e3perien"a politic romneasc dup 1'%' i
sedimentarea unor practici0 a unor concepte din literatura de specialitate0 preluate de colile
romneti de comunicare0 putem #ncerca o de*inire a procesului prin care se genereaz
imaginea politic. /st*el0 imaginea politic0con*orm sc)emei clasice a comunicrii CS)annon
i AeaverD0 este generat de un grup specializat0 cu un emi"tor determinat Cpersoana anga&at
#n activitata politicD. +rupul respectiv controleaz produc"ia mesa&elor0 modul de di*uzare i
selec"ioneaz pu$licul "int cruia #i sunt adresate mesa&ele0 destinate s atrag o atitudine
*avora$il emi"torului sau o atitudine ostil concuren"ei C#n sistemul politic american este
permis propaganda negativO ast*el0 pot *i vzute #n campaniile politice americane numeroase
spoturi negative0 care au #ns speci*icat la s*ritul spotului *inan"atorul0 pu$licul avnd
posi$ilitatea s a*le cine a comandat spotul respectiv i s decripteze eventualele interese i
legturi #ntre cellalt candidat i sponsorD.
7ropaganda i8a dovedit e*icien"a #n diverse epoci0 as*el #nct anumite imagini politice
proiectate intens au s*rit prin a su$stitui persoanele #n cauz. .ste cazul lui 1ezar0 >ero0
>apoleon0 Bitler0 1)e +uervara0 ,ao sau Bo i ,in. Foarte rar se #ntmpla #n trecut0 #n
a$sen"a mass8media0 s e3iste relatri contrare imaginii politice proiectate #n epoc0 aa cum
este cazul lui 7rocopius din 1aesareea. /cesta a scris o istorie secret0 critic la adresa
domniei #mpratului $izantin Iustinian0 care a aprut dup moartea autorului0 care era complet
6
di*erit de istoria o*icial0 elogioas0 scris i pu$licat de acelai 7rocopius #ns #n timpul
vie"ii #mpratului. 1u toate acestea0 imaginea pu$lic a #mpratului Iustinian a *ost pu"in
atins de KIstoria secret@ a lui 7rocopius din 1aesareea0 c)iar dac acesta #l #n*"ia pe
Iustinian0 #mpreun cu so"ia sa !eodora0 ca un tiran cstorit cu o artist de circ.
2n alt caz interesant #n istorie este >ero. :n cel de8al aizeci i patrulea an de la >aterea
5omnului0 ;oma a *ost distrus par"ial de *oc i mica sect a cretinilor a *ost acuzat de
provocarea cu $un tiin" a uriaului incendiu. / urmat o scurt i teri$il persecu"ie0 #n care
se crede c i8a pierdut via"a i S*ntul 7avel. >ero0 #mpratul ;omei #ntre anii 54 i 6%0 cnd
a *ost detronat0 a rmas #n amintirea umanit"ii drept cel mai mare duman al noii credin"e0
cretinismul. 5ar >ero nu *usese numai cel care poruncise persecu"ia #mpotriva cretinilor0 ci
i adversarul vec)ii no$ilimi romane0 de care8i $tuse &oc mai ales prin apari"iile sale pe
scen #n calitate de cntre"0 ocupa"ie considerat de marii patricieni ca *iind nedemn de un
#mprat. 5ar cine au *ost cei mai importan"i $iogra*i ai siQ 7atricienii. 1ele trei izvoare ale
antic)it"ii re*eritoare la >ero sunt !acit0 Suetoniu0 i 5ion sau 5io 1assius. !otui0 cercetnd
i alte izvoare clasice0 .ugen 1ize4 a descoperit o alt *a" a #mpratului. @2rt de cercurile
politice conductoare0 >ero a devenit popular #n rndurile ple$ei i ale popula"iei modeste din
provincii@
1
. >ero a avut ini"iativa #ntririi aprrii *rontierelor imperiale la ;in0 la 5unre0 #n
$azinul ,rii >egre i #n /rmenia. !ot >ero a ini"iat re*orma sistemului monetar al imperiului
#n anul 640 ceea ce presupune o cunoatere pro*und a delicatului mecanism al com$aterii
in*la"iei0 de care depindea ec)ili$rul economic #n tot imperiul. ,ult timp dup moartea sa
poporul a crezut c >ero doar a *ugit i c va reveni #ntr8o $un zi. 1u toate acestea0 imaginea
sa predominant #n istorie este cea a unui monstru0 un uciga de cretini.
;evenind la epoca contemporan0 o$servm c metodele moderne de comunicare0
#ncepnd cu pu$licitatea pentru pasta de din"i i detergen"i i terminnd cu pu$licitatea
electoral0 nu se $azeaz pe ra"ionalitatea indivizilor0 ci pe emo"ionalitate. Indivizii sunt
$om$arda"i prin mesa&e repetitive0 uneori o$sesiv0 mesa&e asociate cu Krecompense i
pedepse@ #n plan emo"ional. KFii cel mai $un@ este un mesa& comun #n pu$licitate care este
asociat cu consumul unui anumit produs. K7edeapsa emo"ional@ const #n *aptul c nu po"i *i
cel mai $un dac nu consumi produsul respectiv. Ri cine nu8i dorete s *ie cel mai $unQ
Televiziunea este un mediu de comunicare eminament emoional i de acest specific trebuie s
tin cont cei care doresc s realizeze un produs audiovizual destinat difuzrii printr-un canal
de televiziune.
7entru a *ace comunicarea de mas ct mai e*icient0 #nc de la apari"ia a*iului s8a
o$servat necesitatea unei #m$inri ct mai inspirate #ntre imagine i te3t. Filmul i apoi
televiziunea au accentuat aceast necesitate0 imaginile #n micare avnd un poten"ial de
credi$ilitate i emo"ionalitate mult mai mare pentru mesa&ul pu$licitar. 7u$licitatea este
domeniul privilegiat care utilizeaz te3te i imagini *unc"ionale0 ceea ce ne permite s
o$servm c evolu"ia pu$licit"ii coincide cu evolu"ia comunicrii de mas. 7rima perioad a
pu$licit"ii0 din 1%'0 pn #n 1'400 a *ost dominat de curentul Kestetico8perceptiv@. 7artizanii
acestui curent considerau c mesa&ul tre$uie s stimuleze sistemul perceptiv al receptorului0
iar calit"ile estetice ale mesa&ului s *ie capa$ile s stimuleze emo"ia acestuia. 5in aceast
perspectiv0 putem o$serva c pu$licitatea a *ost un adevrat Keducator@ al $unului gust al
pu$licului larg.
5up 1'400 dezvoltarea pu$licit"ii #n S2/ a impus o nou tendin"0 curentul
Kargumenta"ional@. /dep"ii acestei maniere de a *ace pu$licitate considerau comunicarea
scripto8iconic e*icient doar dac aceasta propunea Kun argument de vnzare e3clusiv@0 idee
1ize4 .ugen0 Secven roman, pag. 9, .ditura 7olitic0 6ucureti0 1'%6
-
condensat #n 1'60 de specialistul #n pu$licitate ;osser ;eeves #n *ormula 2S7 C2niMue
Selling 7ropositonD. 5e *apt ;eeves nu *cea dect s teoretizeze ceea ce un alt practician al
pu$licit"ii0 1laude Bop4ins practica cu succes #nc din 1'2-. 1on*orm acestei teorii0
imaginea tre$uia doar s ilustreze ceea ce titlul a*iului0 tema0 mesa&ul0 sloganul e3prima.
/ceast tendin" #n pu$licitate a luat amploare dup 1'400 sus"intorii teoriei creznd cu trie
#n virtu"ile persuasive ale ra"ionalului0 ale logicii0 ale cuvntului0 ale argumentului. / *ost
perioada #n care te3tul a devansat ca importan" imaginea0 iar specialitii #n audiovizual au
*ost retrogada"i pe locul secund #n procesul ela$orrii campaniilor pu$licitare. :ns la
#nceputul anilor S60 o nou tendin" #i *acea sim"it prezen"a #n lumea pu$licit"ii0 $azat pe
Kteoria motivrii@. 1on*orm acestei teorii0 pentru o comunicare de mas e*icient0 cea ce
conteaz este motiva"ia0 acea *or" intern0 care ne #mpinge s ac"ionm #ntr8o direc"ie dorit
de realizatorii mesa&elor. 1ei care au lansat aceast teorie au *ost psi)ologul american .rnst
5ic)ter i cercettorul #n domeniul pu$licit"ii 7erre ,artineau din 1)icago. ,artineau a pus
acentul pe identi*icarea stimulilor la care reac"ioneaz receptorul0 destinatarul mesa&ului
pu$licitar. :n acest caz sociopsi)ologii sunt cei care coduc procesul de comunicare0 iar
specialitii #n audiovizual i redactorii se paseaz pe locul secund #n plan decizional0 ei
urmnd s dea *orm conceptelor sta$ilite de sociopsi)olgi. /cest curent plaseaz imaginea pe
primul loc #n ceea ce privete *or"a de sugestie asupra consumatoruluide pu$licitate.
;ezumnd cele a*irmate mai sus0 pn la #nceputul anilor S600 #n pu$licitate s8au
con*runtat dou coli de g#ndire= Kmotiva"ionitii@ i partizanii Kargumentrii@. 7rimii aveau #n
vedere Kcapul@ consumatorilor0 spiritul0 ra"iunea acestora. 1eilal"i urmreau s stimuleze
a*ectul indivizilor. /cest adevrat rz$oi a continuat pn la apari"ia postulatului semiologului
*rancez ;oland 6art)es. :n postulatul semiologic pu$licat #n 1'640 6art)es a*irm c structura
*ormal semn imagine sau te3t este cea care guverneaz con"inutul mesa&elor persuasive.
1eea ce este cu adevrat important0 con*orm acestui postulat0 este asigurarea condi"iilor
necesare pentru transmiterea e*ectiv a in*orma"iei dorite att #n plan a*ectiv c#t i #n plan
ra"ional. /s*el0 utilizatorii imaginilor de tip iconic urmresc saturarea din punct de vedere
semantic a imaginilor pe care le pun #n circula"ie. 5in acest punct de vedere0 rezult c nu este
necesar s *ii artist pentru a realiza imagini de tip *unc"ional care s rspund postulatului lui
6art)es0 care presupune o identitate #ntre con"inutul proiectat0 dorit i con"inutul *a$ricat0
rezultat.
2006 - Tendine n pu!licitate " originalitate i noile media
1u apro3imativ '0 de ani #n urm0 americanul BarrE ;eic)en$ac) a re"inut o camer la
)otelul 6ellclaire0 din >e9 Tor40 su$ un nume *als 8 !)omas ;. Uann. .l a comandat
serviciului de servire #n camer CroomserviceD nici mai mult0 nici mai pu"in dect 25 de 4g de
*riptur i0 cnd c)elnerul i8a dus comanda0 acesta a constatat cu stupoare c oaspetele avea i
un leu #n camer. 6ine#n"eles0 a venit poli"ia i toat presa a vuit despre isprava domnului !.;.
Uann care a declarat poli"iei c este un *an al lui !arzan. 5e ce crede"i c a ales BarrE
;eic)en$ac)0 alias !)omas ;. Uann s8i declare ast*el simpatia pentru !arzanQ 5up acest
eveniment de pres a urmat premiera *ilmului !arzan i ziarele au scris despre *ilm mult mai
mult i *r s incaseze $aniG dect ar *i ar *i *ost anga&at o campanie tradi"ional de
pu$licitate.
1ine era de *apt BarrE ;eic)en$ac)Q 2n agent de pres i de pu$licitate care realiza
evenimente senza"ionale pentru a promova *ilmele pentru care *usese anga&at s *ac
pu$licitate. .l a lucrat att ca agent de pres0 ct i ca actor. 7rintre primele sale slu&$e a *ost
aceea de a promova o *emeie0 supranumit KSo$er 6lue@0 care nu zm$ea niciodat. .l a
#nc)eiat un contract cu teatrul Pictoria de pe 6road9aE prin care a *cut i8a *cut o campanie
%
de pu$licitate *emeii respective0 $azat pe urmtoarea idVe= el a o*erit o mie de dolari oricrui
comedian din >e9 Tor4 care reuea s o *ac s rd. >imeni nu a reuit. 5e *apt0 *emeia
su*erea de sindromul ,o$ius0 care #nseamn paralizia muc)ilor *aciali0 ast*el #nct persoana
respectiv era incapa$il s rd. /m *cut aceast parantez pentru a demonstra c
;eic)en$ac) poate *i considerat unul dintre pionierii ieirii din tiparele traditionale ale
pu$licit"ii. /stzi0 ideile care depesc a$loanele reclamei par a *i Kmina de aur? cea mai
cutat astzi de companiile de pu$licitate. /ceast tendin" spre neconven"ional a luat
amploare la ultimele *estivaluri interna"ionale de pu$licitate. <a 1annes0 #n anul 20060
reclamele pe ne9 media C#n care este inclus internetulD au *ost cele mai apreciate. +rand 7ri38
ul pe cE$er a *ost luat de o reclam considerat ca *cnd parte din categoria Kviral?0 #n care
aprea un tip escaladnd cea mai #nalt cldire a $azei aeriene /ndre9s /ndre9s C/ir*orce
6aseD i scriind cu gra**iti KStill Free? c)iar pe /ir Force (ne0 avionul preedintelui 6us). 2n
spot cu un scenariu su$versiv0 care a a&uns s *ie di*uzat de *oarte multe ne9sletter8uri i site8
uri. Spoturile au a&uns i #n emisiunile de tiri0 reporterii #ncercnd s a*le dac persona&ul
respectiv a a&uns sau nu la avionul prezidential. 5e *apt0 spotul a *ost o reclam pentru site8ul
artistului gra**iti ,ar4 .c4o0 999.still*ree.com. ( alt reclam inovativ de ultim or este
cea pentru 7izza K7apa Wo)nSs?0 creat de Saatc)i J Saatc)i *iliala din 7eru i di*uzat prinX
vizorul uii. !e uiti pe vizor i vezi un c)elner Cdin carton0 dar pare naturalD cu o cutie de pizza
intins spre tine. /cest gen de reclam #nlocuiete *lEerele ag"ate de clan". 556 1anada a
avut o alt idVe neconven"ional0 de *ace reclam unui ca$inet de c)irurgie plastic pe nite
pa)are de plastic imprimate cu pro*iluri umane. 1nd pa)arul era dus la gur0 reconstituia un
pro*il *oarte *rumos. 1ompania +illette a apelat la spltorii de par$rize care cur"au
geamurile pline de spum cu ustensile avnd *orma aparatului de $r$ierit. Iar /didas0 la
Aorld 1up 20060 a pictat cupola unei gri cu o *resc pe teme *ot$alistice. .3emplele de acest
*el sunt din ce #n ce mai *recvente. :ns po"i *i neconven"ional i pe spa"iile conven"ionale=
reclama la #ndulcitori 8 un $anner #n *orm de cma care st s plesneasc0 pe care scria c0
daca te8ai ingrat0 treci la KS9eete3?. Sau reclama pentru $i&uteriile Aempe care0 dei a *ost
di*uzat prin presa scris0 un canal tradi"ional de comunicare0 caseta s8a dovedit inovativ
pentru c puteai Kpro$a? $i&uteriile la gt sau pe inelar.
1aracteristica cea mai important a ma&orit"ii reclamelor pe ne9 media este c sunt *oarte
simple i uor de e3ecutat. >u este nevoie de regizor0 operator0 *otogra* cele$ru etc.0 tre$uie
doar s ai ideea. 1ea mai di*icil pro$lem este s #i convingi pe proprietarii companiilor sau
pe menegerii lor0 care gestioneaz $ugete de pu$licitate0 s accepte i acest canal de
comunicare ca di*uzor de pu$licitate. ( alt pro$lem a reclamelor di*uzate prin canale media
neconven"ionale este aceea c0 dac nu sunt *oarte puternice0 *oarte creative0 ele nu8i *ac
e*ectul0 *iindc valoarea lor provine din *aptul c0 *iind att de surprinztoare0 se rspndesc
singure0 genereaz *olclorul pe internet. ;eclamele pe inovative se potrivesc *oarte $ine i
pentru $randurile mari0 care au suprasaturat televiziunile cu pu$licitate. <a acestea0 e*icien"a
di*uzrii se *ace pe celelalte canale de di*uzare0 internetul *iind un e3emplu.
:n ;omnia0 deocamdat0 pu$licitatea la televiziune este ie*tin #n compara"ie cu alte "ri
i are avanta&ul c poate *i cuanti*icat. :ns *olclorul generat pe internet este *oarte di*icil de
cuati*icat i0 c)iar dac este mult mai ie*tin pu$licitatea pe internet0 din aceast cauz
companiile cu $ugete de pu$licitate ezit s accepte pu$licitatea pe internet..
2006 - Tendine n #urnalismul american
:n *iecare an0 #n ultimii doi ani0 7ro&ect *or .3cellence in Wournalism pu$lic la #nceputul
anului un raport cu principalele tendin"e #n &urnalismul american0 su$ titlul ?/nnual ;eport
'
(n !)e State o* t)e >e9s ,edia@
2
. ;aportul este interesant pentru *aptul c ne o*er o
radiogra*ie clar a ceea ce #nseamn mass8media americane #n prezent. P propun s urmrim
#mpreun cele mai importante idei ale acestui raport. 7entru studen"i0 aceste idei0 tendin"e sunt
importante pentru c vor #n"elege mai $ine modul cum vor evolua mass8media din ;omnia #n
urmtorii ani.
/naliznd titlurile din presa american din anul 20050 principala #ntre$are pe care i8o pun
analitii care au #ntocmit raportul este urmtoarea= ar putea *i 2006 anul dispari"iei presei
scrise americaneQ .volu"ia din 2005 a presei americane poate *i caracterizat de declinul
numrului de cititori0 de scderea veniturilor0 i scderea cota"iei $ursiere cu 20H. /ceast
situa"ie l8a determinat pe *ostul decan al Facult"ii de &urnalism din cadrul universit"ii
1olum$ia !om +oldstein0 s declare c ?*r un rspuns urgent la sc)im$area mediului de
a*aceri i din societate0 presa risc curnd dispari"ia@. +oldstein este acum pro*esor la
universitatea 6er4eleE i lucreaz la un proiect prin care studiaz noi metode de generare a
pro*itului din &urnalism.
1on*orm raportului0 puterea #n &urnalism se mut de la &urnaliti0 de la gate4eeperi la ceea
ce pu$licul #i dorete. /udien"a glisez de la canalele de comunicare tradi"ionale0 presa0
televiziunea0 ctre noua media0 media online. :n aceast situa"ie0 &urnalitii tre$uie s8i
rede*ineasc rolul lor i s identi*ice care sunt valorile pro*esionale tradi"ionale pentru care
tre$uie s lupte pentru ale pstra #n continuare. <a acest declin a contri$uit masiv pu$licul
american0 a crui #ncredere #n media i &urnaliti a #nceput s scad costant din 1'%00
?considernd media din ce #n ce mai putin pro*esional0 relatnd cu o acurate"e din ce #n ce
mai redus0 mai putin atent cu pu$licul i din ce #n ce mai pu"in moral@. Sociologul 7ollster
/ndre9 a condensat ast*el in*orma"iile analizate pentru #ntormirea raportului= americanii
consider c organiza"iie media ac"ioneaz #n propriul interes economic i &urnalitii
ac"ioneaz #n principal pentru avansarea #n carier.
1ele ase tendin"e #n &urnalismul de tiri american #n 2006 prezentate #n ?/nnual ;eport
(n !)e State o* t)e >e9s ,edia@ sunt urmtoarele=
1. >oul parado3 al &urnalismului este mai mult piat media0 mai multe relatri0 mai pu"ine
su$iecte. 5ac numrul surselor de tiri a crescut0 audien"a pentru *iecare #n parte tinde s
scad i numrul de &urnaliti din *iecare organiza"ie este #n scdere. <a nivel na"ional0
oganiza"iile media continu s prezinte marile evenimente0 dar tinndem s vedem#n *iecare zi
mai multe relatri ale acelorleai evenimente. :n cazul evenimentelor mari0 o$servm c
acestea sunt tratate aproape #n acelai mod. ;eporterii lucreaz cu surse limitate de in*orma"ie
i cu o presiune *oarte mare din punct de vedere al timpului de reac"ie.
2. :n ceea ce privete presa scris0 cea mai amenin"at *orm de ziar o reprezint ziarele
na"ionale i metropolitane0 care au dominat presa scris #n a doua &umtate a secolului al NN8
lea. 7rimele ziare #n topul american au pierdut din cititori #n anul 2005. 7rincipala cauz este
#ndeprtarea de cititori i apari"ia ziarelor de ni0 cu o audien" mult mai $ine de*init0 dar
mai restrns.
3. :n multe companii media vec)i0 cu tradi"ie0 dar nu #n toate zecile de ani de lupte la vr* #ntre
idealiti i ?conta$ili@ s8au #nc)eiat acum. Idealitii au pierdut. 7rin conta$ili se #n"elege
curentul celor care au considerat presa o a*acere ca oricare alta0 #n care contez ma3imizarea
pro*itului0 cu orice mi&loace0 #n detrimentul *uc"iilor sociale tradi"ionale ale presei. ?5ac
argumentezi astzi despre #ncrederea pu$licului vei *i concediat ca o$struc"ionist i romantic@
a declarat un editor pentru autorii raportului0 dorind s8i pstreze anonimatul. 7resiunea
proprietarilor este att de mare #nct unii &urnaliti au pre*erat s8i sc)im$e meseria. (
e3plica"ie destul de clar #n ceea ce privete rspunsul la #ntre$area de ce &urnalismul actual
)ttp 999.stateo*t)ene9smedia.com820068printa$le &os overvie9
10
este din ce #n ce mai pu"in preocupat de interesul pu$lic a dat8o 7ol4 <a**oon IP0 purttorul de
cuvnt al corpora"iei Inig)t ;idder Cproprietara cotidianului Inig)t ;idder s San Wose
,ercurE >e9sD= ?doresc s gsim o puternic corela"ie #ntre &urnalismul de calitate i vnzri.
>u este uor@. 5e alt*el corpora"ia Inig)t ;idder a *ost cumprat #n data de 13 martie 2006
de ,c1latc)E care a devenit ast*el al doilea mare editor american de cotidiane.
4. ,edia tradi"ional se #ndreapt ctre inova"iile te)nologice i acest lucru se vede #n sursele
de pro*it. ( mare parte a pro*itului a #nceput s ai$ ca surs #n companiile media &urnalismul
online i produsele de ni0 cum ar *i cotidianele dedicate tinerilor. :n ;omnia0 *enomenul
poate *i identi*icat mai uor #n audiovizual0 prin apari"ia unui val de televiziuni de ni. :ns
acest *enomen are o e3plica"ie mult mai simpl. !eleviziunile de ni #n ;omnia recupereaz
mult mai repede $anii investi"i0 pentru c #n realitate se sc)im$ rela"ia editorial clasic #ntre
su$iectul *ilmat i canal. 5ac #n mod tradi"ional canalul *cea selec"ia su$iectelor0 acum o *ac
su$iec"ii0 care pltesc ca s apar0 respectnd regulile minimale ale 1/>. :n cazul anumitor
televiziuni de ni din ;omnia0 a*irma"ia lui Wames <ull este mai mult dect acual= cnd
primeti o licen" de televiziune este ca i cnd ai primi o licen" de tiprit $ani.
5. >oii competitori ai canalelor media tradi"ionale sunt ?aggregators@ motoarele de cutare
+oogle i Ta)oo. /cestea caut i strng pentru utilizatori tiri0 produse media tradi"ionale0
ceea ce i8a determinat pe reprezentan"ii presei tradi"ionale s cear compensa"ii materiale. :n
20060 productorii de tiri despre vreme au #nceput s cear $ani de la +oogle pentru
in*orma"iile gsite pe internet. +oogle are de ales acum #ntre a produce propriile tiri despre
vreme sau s plteasc pentru cele postate pe internet. :n anul 2005 Ta)oo a anun"at anga&area
ctorva &urnaliti0 dar investi"ia este minimal.
6. / asea tendin" #n &urnalismul american #n anul 2006 poate *i *ormulat ast*el= :ntre$area
central re*eritoare la aspectul economic #n &urnalism continu s *ie ?ct de mult va dura pn
cnd &urnalismul online va deveni un motor economic la *el de puternic ca presa scris sau
televiziuneaQ
!endin"ele #n tirile de televiziune nu sunt nici ele promi"toare. Rtirile de sear ale marilor
re"ele de televiziune au continuat s scad #n audien"0 cu 6H #n 2004 *a" de 2005. Rtirile
locale au sczut de asemenea #n audien"0 #ns #n 2006 se o$serv o uoar revenire a
audien"ei. ( tendin" de cretere a audien"ei se o$serv la prima edi"ie de tiri dup prime
time.
7entru ;omnia0 a*lat #n plin proces de reconstruc"ie social i de integrare #n 2niunea
.uropean0 considerm c este nevoie de o pres activ0 e*icient economic0 dar ct mai pu"in
dependent de ?tirania pro*itului@ pentru a8l para*raza pe 7ierre 6ourdieu0 care se re*erea la
televiziunea pu$lic0 eli$erat prin statultul su de ?tirania audimatului@. 5e asemnea0 este
nevoie de un sistem mass8media care s implice cet"eanul #n via"a social0 care s8l #nve"e c
este important s ia decizii i s nu atepte ca altcineva s ia decizii pentru el. :ns*rit0 mai
considerm *oarte important separarea in*orma"iei de interpretare0 de comentariu0 pentru c #n
acest caz0 grani"a #ntre in*ormare i dezin*ormare0 manipulare este uneori imposi$il de gsit.
11
$ligar%ii media i puterile lor miraculoase" &uit mois avant l'election presidentielle en
(rance) *)Sar+oz, de#a couronne par les oligar-ues des media.
/
:n cadrul acestui capitol0 cu un titlu poate mai potrivit pentru un cotidian dect pentru un
curs de specialitate0 vom a$orda *enomenul concentrrii mass8media la nivel interna"ional i
#n ;omnia dup 1'%' i consecin"ele acestei concentrri asupra pu$licului0 a &urnalitilor0 #n
general asupra societ"ii romneti. Pom a$orda acest *enomen din perspectiv istoric0 a
evolu"iei sale pentru a #n"elege mai $ine cum poate in*luen"a mass8media construc"ia
democratic #n ;omnia.
(riginile concentrrii i glo$alizrii mass8media le gsim #n anii S%00 #n perioada
preedin"iei lui ;onald ;eagan. :n anul 1'%4 administra"ia american a luat o decizie istoric
i anume dereglementarea mai multor domenii= activitatea companiilor prin ca$lu0 monopolul
telecomunica"iilor de"inut de /!J!0 monopolul de"inut de I6,0 pia"a audiovizualului. / *ost
o decizie politic i economic #n acelai timp= economic #ntruct te)nologia digital era #n
plin e3pansiune0 politic pentru c a avut #n vedere *aptul c presa li$er era *olosit ca vr*
de lance #n con*runtarea cu $locul comunist. K/nul 1'%4 YYnoteaz cu umor .li >oamZZ are
o rezonan" deose$it #n literatur0 *iind sinonim cu controlul total al min"ii0 datorit
romanului 9!" al scriitorului +eorge (r9ell@.
4
5ereglementarea pie"ei audiovizualului a dus la apari"ia a numeroase canale de radio i
televiziune. /cestea s8au con*runtat *oarte repede cu o necesitate= produc"ia de emisiuni care
s acopere grilele de programe i evident cu necesit"i *inanciare din ce #n ce mai mari. 1ea
mai simpl solu"ie pentru scderea c)eltuielilor de produc"ie #n cazul radiourilor i
televiziunilor este a*ilierea sta"iilor locale la canale cu acoperire na"ional0 ceea ce se #ntmpl
acum i #n ;omnia. 5e aici pn la preluarea de ctre K*ratele mai mare@ nu a *ost dect un
pas. /adar *enomenul glo$alizrii media a #nceput #n S2/0 unde la #nceputul anilor %00
re"elele de televiziune /610 16S i >61 de"ineau #mpreun '2H totalul audien"ei. !ot #n
acea perioad0 /!J! controla %0H din serviciile tele*onice locale i aproape 100H din
convor$irile interna"ionale. 5up mai pu"in de zece ani de la decizia privind dereglementarea
pia"a comunica"iilor i a audiovizualului0 cele trei mari re"ele de televiziune mai de"ineau doar
53H din audien"0 /!J! de"inea 55H din pia"a convor$irilor interna"ionale i pierduse practic
pia"a serviciilor tele*onice locale.
5
/ceast evolu"ie a mass8media s8a accelerat an de an0 de la nivel na"ional la nivel glo$al0
ast*el #nct s8a a&uns ca pia"a mondial media s *ie controlat #n acest moment de nou mari
grupuri multimedia0 care concentreaz toate *ormele de pres0 de produc"ie i de di*uzare a
operelor culturale de mas= cotidiane0 periodice0 radio0 televiziune0 produc"ie i di*uzare de
muzic i *ilme0 &ocuri pentru computer0 internet
6
. 1oncentrarea media s8a *cut pe dou
direc"ii. / e3istat i e3ist #nc o concentrare pe domenii de activitate Ce3= trusturi specializate
#n pres scris sau #n audiovizualD i0 cea de8a doua direc"ie0 integrarea #n grupuri multimedia.
5ac pn #n 1'%0 mass8media avea o$iective la nivel na"ional0 dup 1'%00 la presiunea
Fondului ,onetar Interna"ional i a 6ncii ,ondiale0 #n ma&oritatea "rilor occidentale au *ost
privatizate sistemele de telecomunica"ii0 ceea ce0 #mpreun cu dereglementarea
3
6enilde ,arie0 #uit mois avant l$election presidentielle en %rance. &.Sarkoz' de(a couronne par les oligar)ues
des media*0 <e ,onde 5iplomatiMue0 septem$rie 20060 articol aprut cu opt luni #nainte de alegerile
preziden"iale din Fran"a care au avut loc #n anul 200-
)ttp=[[999.monde[diplomatiMue.*r[2006[0'[6.>I<5.[13'2% S.7!.,6;. 2006 8 7ages 22 et 23
4
>oam ,. .li0 &edia +oncetration in the ,nited States- .ndustr' Trends and /egulator' /esponses0 pag.10
)ttp=[[999.vii.org[papers[medconc.)tml
5
id.0
6
Stavre Ion0 /econstrucia societii rom0neti cu a(utorul audiovizualului, pag....ditura >emira0 6ucureti0
2004
12
audiovizualului0 a dus la apari"ia gigan"ilor media. 7rimele cinci mari companii media sunt
!ime Aarner0 5isneE0 6ertelsmann0 Piacom0 >e9s 1orporation0 ultima *iind proprietatea lui
;upert ,urdoc).
-
7ia"a glo$al media i de divertisment a crescut spectaculos dup anul
20000 de la 101 trilioane de dolari #n 2001 la 104 trilioane #n anul 2006.
%
Instrumentul la nivel interna"ional care a permis glo$alizarea mass8media a *ost acordul de
trans*ormare a *ostului +/!! C/cordul general pentru tari*e i comer"D #n A!( CAorld !rade
(rganizationD. >egocierile acestui acord0 unde cei mai importan"i participan"i au *ost 1omisia
.uropean i S2/0 au #nceput #n anul 1'%6 i sunt cunoscute su$ denumirea K;unda
2ruguaE@ pentru c primele #ntlniri au avut loc la 7unta del .ste
'
. .sen"a disputei #ntre
reprezentan"ii comisiei europene i cei ai administra"iei americane a *ost aceea a statutului
operelor culturale. .uropenii0 #n special *rancezii0 doreau s se men"in prevederea con*orm
creia operele culturale nu sunt o mar* ca oricare alta i nu pot circula li$er Cidee care se
regsea #n te3tul *ondatorilor +/!! din anul 1'4-D i pozi"ia american0 puternic spri&init de
industria imaginarului colectiv de la BollE9ood0 care sus"inea li$era circula"ie a operelor
audiovizuale. 5up zece ani de negocieri0 pozi"ia american s8a impus #n mare msur i
astzi avem o circula"ie rapid a produc"iilor mas8media.
7utem o$serva #n aceast disput dou tipuri de argumente0 argumente *iloso*ice0 de
identitate cultural i democra"ie i argumente Kconta$ile@0 de a*aceri. K<ogica economic i
logica democratic se con*runt astzi #n spa"iul comunicrii. 5e rezultatul acestei lupte
depinde #n mare msur viitorul li$ert"ii de gndire i de e3primare@.
10
KSocietatea actual0
societatea spectacolului0 are #n"elegere doar pentru mr*urile suscepti$ile de a circula li$er cu
mare vitez i capa$ile s genereze o valoare adugat ct mai mare. 1)iar dac operele
culturale sunt lipsite de con"inut0 de mesa& i nu au alt *unc"ie dect s alimenteze ne#ntrerupt
circuitul sc)im$urilor comerciale i pe perioada e3isten"ei lor s creeze iluzia necesar
consumatorilor0 acest lucru nu are importan"0 pentru c nimeni nu cere mai mult de la aceste
opere culturale@
11
. ($servm #n aceste argumente re*eritoare la Kdecderea culturii #n mar*@ o
idee mai vec)e0 e3primat #n anii S30 de /dorno i Bor4)eimer
12
. 7ia"a glo$al media nu
poate *i considerat #n #ntregime ca avnd e*ecte negative. ,esa&ele antirasiste0
antidiscriminare se3ual0 #mpotriva tendin"elor dictatoriale sunt $inevenite oriunde #n lume
e3ist ast*el de *enomene. 5ecala&ul temporal #ntre anumite evenimente interna"ionale i
di*uzarea lor s8a redus *oarte mult gala premiilor de la 1annes i a (scarurilor pot *i
urmrite simultan pe tot glo$ul s8a a&uns c)iar la evenimente organizate simultan #n mai
multe orae ale lumii. 5e e3emplu0 lansarea unui nou model de automo$il poate *i *cut
simultan #n mai multe "ri0 cu transmisii directe din *iecare loc0 prin intermediul *ilialelor
locale ale aceluiai grup interna"ional media. 7rincipalele e*ecte negative ale concentrrii
transna"ionale a mass8media sunt considerate Kdiminuarea diversit"ii produc"iei Ceste vizi$il
pentru oricine puternica uni*ormizare a produc"iilor audiovizuale0 #n po*ida unui numr *oarte
mare de canale de televiziuneD i impactul pe care8l are acest *enomen asupra capacit"ii mass8
-
,c1)esneE ;o$ert0 The 1lobal &edia 1iants. 2e are the 3orld0 FairnessJ/curacE In ;eporting CF/I;D0
)ttp=[[999.*air.org
%
.uropean Foundation *or t)e Improuvement o* <iving and Aor4ing 1ondititons0 The future of publishing and
media, raport disponi$il la 999.eur*ound.eu.int
'
;egourd Serge0 4e 15TT contre 6urope0 <e ,onde 5iplomatiMue0 novem$re 1''30 pag. 14
C)ttp=[[999.transnationale.org[sources[in*ormation[culture\gatt2\)tmlD
10
7almer ,ic)ael0 7erversion economi)ue contre le pluralisme liberal0 <e ,onde 5iplomatiMue0 mai 1'%-0
pages 1% et 1' C)ttp=[[monde8diplomatiMue.*r[1'%-[7/<,.;[14662D
11
;alite Wac40 46 15TT +89T/6 45 +,4T,/6. :anger pour la civilisation0 <e ,onde 5iplomatiMue0
novem$re 1''30 pag. 32 C)ttp=[[999.transnationale.org[sources[in*ormation[culture\marc)andise.)tmlD
13
media de a contri$ui la #m$untt"irea activit"ilor din s*era pu$lic@.
13
:n aceste *el este
a*ectat cel mai important rol pe care8l au mass8media #ntr8o societate democratic0 acela de a
sus"ine li$ertatea de gndire i de e3presie.
0uropa1 concentrarea mass-media i trusturile internaionale prezente n 2omnia
5atorit e3tinderii 2niunii .uropene i a ariei pro$lemelor comunitare0 la nivelul
institu"iilor $trnului continent a aprut o Kspecializare@ a acestora. 5e pro$lema drepturilor
omului se preocup #n acest moment0 #n special0 1onsiliul .uropei.
;aportul pe care 1onsiliul .uropei l8a redactat #n anul 2004 arat c noul mediu #n care
evolueaz mass8media la nivel european i interna"ional o*er telespectatorilor i
consumatorilor un numr mai mare de emisiuni i canale de televiziune0 *r a putea spune
acelai lucru despre diversitatea con"inutului acestor emisiuni. K5e e3emplu0 #n televiziune0
programele ie*tine i a$lonate0 serialele tind s domine grilele multor canale *iind o*erite #n
condi"ii similare #n mai multe "ri europene. 7rin dezvoltarea te)nologiei digitale0 activit"ile
gate4eeper8ilor Cdeciden"ii care )otrsc care sunt emisiunile care intr #n grilD conduc la
reducerea pluralismului i a diversit"ii0 ridicnd semne de #ntre$are asupra modului #n care
este garantat li$erul acces la mass8media i asupra persoanelor care decid con"inutul
programelor di*uzate de re"elele prin ca$lu0 a re"elelor terestre i a programelor di*uzate prin
satelit. Fr a *i adaptate0 con"inutul programelor di*uzate de mass8media transna"ionale0 vor
deveni mai pu"in locale0 vor con"ine mai pu"ine su$iecte controversate i de investiga"ie i vor
*i mai pu"in in*ormative. Func"ia de YYpaznic al democra"ieiZZ va *i redus0 prin reducerea
aten"iei asupra cunoaterii pro$lemelor locale@
14
.
:n raportul Transnational media concentrations in 6urope din anul 20040 1onsiliul
.uropei propune opt recomandri0 dintre care cele mai importante se re*er la=
L monitorizarea la nivel european a concentrrii transna"ionale a mass8media i0 dac este
necesar0 la declanarea unor ac"iuni care s previn impactul negativ al acestui *enomen
asupra li$ert"ii de e3presie0 a pluralismului i a diversit"iiO
L includerea #n licen"ele de autorizare a unor o$liga"ii re*eritoare la asigurarea li$ert"ii de
e3presie i in*ormare i a pluralismului de opinie0 atunci cnd companiile media solicit
autoriza"ia de *unc"ionareO
L #ntrirea #n "rile europene a separrii #ntre autorit"ile politice i media i asigurarea
transparen"ei tuturor deciziilor luate de autorit"ile pu$lice care privesc mass8mediaO
L adoptarea de ctre organiza"iile media a unor mecanisme autoregulatorii care s asigure
independen"a editorial.
5ac aruncm o privire principalelor companii europene care au #n structura lor att
ac"ivit"i de pres scris ct i canale de televiziune #n mai mult dect o singur "ar0 rezultatul
este urmtorul
15
=
8 +rupul ;!<. 1u $aza #n <u3em$ourg0 ;!< +roup este cel mai mare operator european
#n domeniul audiovizual. 5e"ine 24 de canale tv i 24 de sta"ii de radio dispersate #n
nou "riO
13
1ouncil o* .urope0 Transnational media concentrations in 6urope0 report prepared $E t)e /7 ,50
5irectorate +eneral Buman ;ig)ts0 pag. 40 Strass$ourg0 >ovem$er 2004
14
id.0 pag. 5
15
id.0 pag. 35 40
14
L ,odern !imes +roup este o companie suedez cu activit"i interna"ionale #n domeniul
audiovizualului0 #n mai multe "ri europene= Suedia0 >orvegia0 Finlanda0 .stonia0
<ituania0 2ngaria0 ;usia.
L S6S 6roadcasting este o companie multina"ional cu capital american0 care de"ine la
nivel european 10 canale tv #n apte "ri C#n ;omnia 7rima !PD i 53 de canale
radio #n cinci "ri. :n ;omnia S6S0 mai de"ine o re"ea redio i o serie de pu$lica"ii
tiprite.
L 1entral .uropean ,edia .ntreprises C1,.D. /ceast companie0 #n*iin"at #n anul 1''4
de magnatul american ;onald <auder0 este #nregistrat #n insulele 6ermude
16
. 1,.
opereaz opt canale de televiziune #n cinci "ri din .uropa 1entral i de .st. :n
;omnia 1,. de"ine grupul ,edia7ro0 dintre care cele mai cunoscute canale de
televiziune sunt 7ro!v0 7ro1inema0 /cas. 7e lng aceste canale de televiziune0 din
grupul ,edia7ro mai *ac parte o re"ea de sta"ii de radio F,0 7roF,0 o agen"ie de tiri0
,edia*a3 i mai multe pu$lica"ii tiprite.
L <agardere /ctive. <agardere /ctive este o component a grupului <agardere0 unul
dintre cele mai importante grupuri industriale din Fran"a0 cu realizri deose$ite #n
industria armamentului. 1a o curiozitate0 amintim c rac)eta .3ocet0 tras de
argentinieni0 care a scu*undat crucitorul $ritanic S)e*ield #n rz$oiul insulelor
,alvine0 a *ost *a$ricat de grupul <agardere. :n ;omnia0 grupul <agardere de"ine
cea mai important re"ea de radio privat0 .uropa F,.
L 6ertelsmann. 1on*orm statisticilor din anul 20020 grupul 6ertelsmann este din anul
2002
1-
a asea companie media din lume0 cuprinznd cel mai mare grup audiovizual
privat european0 o editur C;andom BouseD0 zeci de pu$lica"ii0 servicii de distri$u"ie0
multimedia0 tipogra*ii0 etc.
L A/U. 5up e3tinderea 2niunii .uropene0 grupul A/U0 a3at pe tiprituri0 a ctigat o
pozi"ie semni*icativ #n .uropa 1entral i de .st. 1ea mai cunoscut pu$lica"ie
de"inut #n ;omnia este cotidianul /om0nia 4iber. :n 1roa"ia0 A/U a investit masiv
#n .uropa 7ress Bolding0 cel mai important editor croat0 care de"inea 30H din pia"a
cotidianelor i cel mai important sptmnal de politic intern i e3tern. ,odelul
investi"ional al A/U presupune cumprarea a 50H din capitalul societ"ii vizate i
Kac"iunea de aur@ 0 ceea ce permite controlul total al societ"ii.
L ;ingier +roup0 cu sediul central #n .lve"ia0 este specializat #n pu$lica"ii tiprite. 5up
1'%' a preluat numeroase cotidiane i periodice din .uropa 1entral i de .st. :n
;omnia0 cele mai cunoscute pu$lica"ii pe care le de"ine sunt 6venimentul ;ilei0
4ibertatea i un cotidian de sport.
:n ceea ce privete concentrarea media #n .uropa0 se o$serv un *enomen interesant. ,ulte
companii care s8au dezvoltat #n sectoare economice tradi"ionale Cconstruc"ii0 industria de
armamentD au #nceput s investeasc #n domeniul comunicrii. K:n Fran"a0 ,artin 6ouEgues0
proprietarul celei mai mari companii de construc"ii a cumprat !F 10 Wean <uc <agardere0
preedinte director general al productorului de armament ,atra a cumprat grupul Bac)ette.
5intre primii 12 miliardari #n euro din Fran"a0 &umtate dintre ei C6ernard /rnault0 Serge
5assault *a$ricantul avioanelor ,irage0 Wean 1laude 5ecau30 ,artin 6ouEgues i Pincent
6olloreD au investit masiv #n domeniile comunica"ii0 media i pu$licitate. :n Italia0 dup ce a
*cut avere #n domeniul imo$iliar0 Silvio 6erlusconi a pro*itat de s*ritul monopolului
televiziunii pu$lice ;/I i a construit un imperiu media0 $azat pe mai multe canale de
televiziune cu a&utorul crora a devenit prim8ministru. <a nivel mondial0 grupurile media sunt
din ce #n ce mai mult implicate #n politic. :n Penezuela0 canalele de televiziune private au
16
id0. pag. 3'
1-
id.0 pag. 36
15
luat parte #n anul 2002 la o lovitur de stat nereuit #mpotriva preedintelui Bugo 1)avez. :n
6razilia0 puternicul grup media +lo$o0 care controleaz o mare parte din presa scris0
televiziunea prin ca$lu i industria pu$licit"ii0 restrnge veleit"ile progresiste ale
preedintelui <ula da Silva@.
1%
/cest *enomen al prelurii grupurilor media de ctre
companiile care s8au dezvoltat #n alte domenii se o$serv i #n S2/0 #ns la scar mai mic.
2na dintre cele trei mari re"ele de televiziune0 >610 apar"ine companiei +eneral .lectric.
7e msur ce companiile multina"ionale se doteaz cu grupuri media0 cresc posi$ilit"ile
oamenilor de a*aceri de a *ace presiuni asupra puterii politice0 pentru a le *avoriza interesele
economice0 *enomen a crui consecin" este degradarea calit"ii in*orma"iei0 ta$loidizarea
tirilor. <ogica ma3imizrii cu orice pre" a pro*itului in*luen"eaz negativ concuren"a i
pluralismul #n domeniul &urnalismului. K5in cauza presiunii audien"ei0 care #nseamn #n
ultim instan" $ani0 reporta&ele despre delincven"0 pedo*ilie0 i crim di*uzate #n S2/ au
crescut cu -00H #ntre 1''3 i 1''60 dei numrul *aptelor de acest gen #nregistrate de statistici
s8au diminuat cu 20H #n aceeai perioad@.
1'
.ste momentul acum s e3plicm de ce am ales acest capitol un titlu att de &urnalistic.
1azul >ic)olas Sar4ozE este cea mai $un ilustrare a noilor reguli ale puterii #n epoca
glo$alizarii mass8media. !imp de aproape zece ani0 Sar4ozE a *ost rs*"atul trusturilor de
pres ale miliardarilor *rancezi prezenta"i anterior. ,ai mult0 *iind prieten cu /rnaud
<agardere0 a o$"inut #n iunie 2006 destituirea directorului revistei 7aris ,atc)0 /lain +enestar
pentru c a pu$licat pe coperta revistei o *otogra*ie cu so"ia lui >ic)olas Sar4ozE #mpreun cu
iu$itul acesteia din momentul respectiv. K;evista 7aris ,atc) apar"ine grupului <agardere i
acest incident demonstreaz limitele li$ert"ii de e3primare #n trustul respectiv@.
20
:n societatea contemporan politica capt imediat o dimensiune mediatic esen"ial.
Scena politic i deciziile politice se constituie #ntr8o imens scen pu$lic pentru mass8media
care0 la comanda proprietarilor i a altor centre de putere0 mai mult sau mai pu"in vizi$le
pentru pu$lic0 caut s o$"in spri&inul cet"enilor sau0 #n alte cazuri0 s atenueze ostilitatea
acestora. 1ea mai recent demonstra"ie a acesui mod de ac"iune0 #n ;omnia0 este *elul #n care
au *ost prezentate personalit"ile care erau poten"iali candida"i #n cele 45 de zile care au
precedat alegerea noului 7atriar) al ;omniei= dezvluiri care nu dezvluiau nimic pentru c
in*orma"iile erau #n esen" vec)i i ar *i putut *i di*uzate cu mult timp #n urm. /ceasta este
#ns doar partea vizi$il a ais$ergului. In*luen"a cea mai important pe care mass8media o
e3ercit asupra *actorului politic nu const #n ceea ce se pu$lic0 ci #n ceea ce nu se pu$lic0 se
omite cu gra"ie sau c)iar se ascunde0 se trece su$ tcere i eventual se pu$lic atunci cnd
*actorul politic iese din proiect sau tre$uie s ias din scenariu i nu accept c i s8a terminat
partitura repartizat. /a apar Kdezvluiri@ despre *aptele unor persoane pu$lice petrecute cu
mul"i ani #n urm0 dei ele erau cunoscute #n redac"ii c)iar din momentul #ntmplrii lor. :n
televiziunile din ;omnia circul o $utad= cameramanii sunt plti"i pentru ceea ce nu se vede
pe ecran nu pentru ceea ce se vede. 2neori pu$licul este consultat asupra in*orma"iilor
di*uzate prin desc)iderea unor linii tele*onice sau prin S,S8uri. Se creeaz ast*el iluzia c se
"ine cont de prerea pu$licului. :ns se sondeaz cea ce s8a artat pu$licului nu ceea ce i s8a
ascuns. In*luen"a mass8media asupra pu$licului se $azeaz pe o regul simpl= #n contiin"a
pu$licului e3ist doar ceea ce mass8media di*uzeaz. >ecesitatea de a e3ista mediatic pentru a
e3ista politic crete dependen"a puterii politice de puterea economic. :n anumite cazuri0 se
#ntmpl ca oamenii politici s devin practic purttorii de cuvnt ai oligar)ilor media. 5ac
un proprietar al unui trust media #i propune s *ac politic0 pu"ini i se pot opune0 #ntruct
com$ina"ia #ntre puterea economic i puterea mediatic aproape c nu are contraputere.
1%
)ttp=[[999.monde8diplomatiMue.*r[cartes[atlas2006[media 8 F.P;I.; 2006
1'
id.0
20
6enilde ,arie0 #uit mois avant l$election presidentielle en %rance. &.Sarkoz' de(a couronne par les
oligar)ues des media*0 <e ,onde 5iplomatiMue0 septem$rie 20060 pag.1
16
.3emplul cel mai elocvent este cel al lui Silvio 6erlusconi0 care a a&uns prim8ministru al
Italiei cu spri&inul decisiv al imperiului su mediatic0 *ormat din trei mari re"ele de televiziune
C1anale 50 Italia I i ;ete ]uattroD la care se adaug un cotidian0 o editur C,ondatoriD i o
mare agen"ie de pu$licitate C7u$litaliaD. :n calitate de prim8ministru a avut posi$ilitatea s
in*luen"eze editorial i serviciul pu$lic de televiziune ;/I. 5orind s elimine orice *orm de
critic a sa #n mass8media0 6erlusconi a in"iat modi*icarea legii audiovizualului #n Italia0 cu
scopul de a anula pragul antitrust0 care limita de"ineile #n mass8media la 20H. <egea a *ost
respins ve)ement de preedintele Italiei de atunci0 1arlo /zelio 1iampi. <a acest con*lict s8a
adugat i interzicerea unor emisiuni care criticau guvernarea sa din grila ;/I. :n aceast
situa"ie0 organiza"iile pro*esionale ale &urnalitilor italieni #mpreun cu International
Federation o* Wournalists au investigat cazul i au #ntocmit un raport despre criza din mass8
media din Italia0 considerat Kde o dramatic importan" pentru .uropa i avnd trei
dimensiuni importante=
1. ;ela"iile #ntre &urnaliti i guvernan"iO
2. Independen"a editorial a &urnalitilorO
3. 1on"inutul conceptului de interes pu$lic #n audiovizual i presa scris@.
21
>ecesitatea
pentru politicieni de a *i mereu prezen"i #n relatri media a in*luen"at i
strategiile campaniilor electorale. Wames 1arville0 consultant media0 unul dintre artizanii
victoriei lui 6ill 1linton #n 1''2 declara dup alegeri= Kcred c noi vom putea s alegem #n
viitor ca preedinte pe oricare actor de la BollE9ood cu condi"ia ca acesta s ai$ o poveste de
spus0 o poveste care le spune oamenilor cum este "ara i cum i cum vede el evolu"ia "rii@.
22
/ceast idee este #ntrit de .van 1ornog0 pro*esor de &urnalism la universitatea 1olum$ia.
K1)eia leaders)ip8ului american este0 #ntr8o mare msur0 storEtelling8ul te)nica
povestirii@.
23
7ro*esorul 1ornog arat c aceast tendin" a aprut dup 1'%00 #n timpul
preedin"iei lui ;onald ;eagan0 atunci cnd povetile au #nceput s su$stituie argumentele
ra"ionale i statisticile #n discursurile o*iciale. StorEtelling8ul a a&uns s domine comunicarea
politic #n S2/ odat cu primul mandat al lui 6ill 1linton0 #n 1''2. /ceast te)nic a
discursului pu$lic reprezint0 dup prerea noastr0 adaptarea comunicrii politice la
speci*icul televiziunii0 la suprao*erta mediatic e3istent0 la ritmul alert de redactare a tirilor.
.venimentele importante sunt tratate ca *apt divers i invers0 singurul lucru care conteaz este
punerea #n scen0 povestea. !otul este construit pentru a emo"iona0 pentru a $analiza0 pentru a
impiedica analiza critic.
7entru a completa peisa&ul media din ;omnia0 la aceste grupuri media interna"ionale mai
tre$uie s adugm i grupurile cu capital romnesc= trustul Intact0 al crui proprietar nu a
reuit s clari*ice pu$lic rolul su #n cadrul puterii coercitive #nainte de 1'%'0 trustul ;ealitatea
!P0 al crui proprietar nu i8a clari*icat rolul #n cel mai mare Ktun@ *inanciar dup 1'%'8
a*acerea F>I i rela"iile cu oamenii care au apar"inut tot puterii coercitive de dinainte de 1'%'
i trustul >a"ional0 proprietatea a doi *ra"i care au aprut miraculos #n a*acerile din ;omnia
dup ce au avut o perioad de o$scuritate #nainte de 1'%' #n Suedia. 7utem identi*ica cteva
caracteristici comune ale acestor trusturi media=
L ele sunt de"inute de persoane care au *cut a*aceri #n alte domenii dect mediaO
L trusturile respective au aprut din necesitatea de a apra a*acerile proprietarilor0
ulterior *iind angrenate #n luptele politiceO
L campaniile de pres apar i dispar0 aparent din senin0 *r s e3iste #ntotdeauna o
legtur cu agenda pu$licului0 identi*icat prin diverse sonda&e de opinie. 5e *oarte
21
.uropean Federation o* Wournalists0 +risis in .talian &edia- #o3 7oor 7olitics and %la3ed 4egislation 7ut
<ournalism ,nder 7ressure, ;eport o* t)e IFW[.FW ,ission to ItalE 6 % novem$er 20030 6russels 2003
22
Salmon 1)ristian0 ,ne machine a fabri)uer des histoires, <e ,onde 5iplomatiMue0 noiem$rie 20060 pag. 1% i
1'
1-
multe ori campaniile de pres au rolul de a a$ate aten"ia de la evenimente i *enomene
importante pentru cet"eanul romn. 2n e3emplu este campania dosariada0 care s8a
#nc)eiat la *el de $rusc cum a aprut0 *r a *ace victime importante0 cu e3cep"ia unei
deputate mult prea guralive c)iar i pentru protectorii si. Felul #n care s8a des*urat
dosariada i mai ales *elul #n acre s8a #nc)eiat0 ne arat c deciden"ii au a&uns la o
#n"elegere= dosarele noastre contra dosarele voastre.
3aterea unei industrii" mass-media din 2omnia dup 4959
!itlul acestui capitol para*razeaz titlul *ilmului lui +ri**int) K>aterea unei na"iuni@0
pentru c industria media din ;omnia s8a dezvoltat dup 1'%' plecnd de la cteva cotidiane0
o televiziune i un un radio pu$lic0 o agen"ie de tiri0 pentru a deveni o industrie #n care
lucreaz mii de anga&a"i. 7entru a #n"elege cum *unc"ioneaz mass8media din ;omnia0 tre$uie
s ne #ntoarcem #n 1'%' i s urmrim cum s8au tras*ormat cele patru puteri #n stat= puterea
politic0 puterea economic0 puterea coercitiv Cputerea uni*ormelor0 #n generalD i puterea
sim$olic. /m pre*erat aceast distinc"ie analitic a puterilor #ntr8un stat evocat de Wo)n 6.
!)ompson
24
pentru c0 dup prerea noastr0 permite o #n"elegere *oarte $un a ceea ce a
urmat dup 1'%'.
:nainte de 1'%'0 #n perioada comunist0 cele patru puteri erau proiectate #ntr8o
interdependen" clar= puterea politic0 partidul comunist0 avea #n su$ordine i controla
celelalte trei puteri0 puterea economic0 puterea coercitiv Cputerea militarD i puterea
sim$olic. /parent aa era0 #ns de8a lungul timpului puterea corcitiv0 #n special o parte a
acesteia0 a cptat o putere economic considera$il i o anumit autonomie0 ceea ce a dus la
dorin"a de a depi statutul de instrument al puterii politice i a deveni puterea #nsi.
5up 1'%'0 cele patru categorii de putere au *ost amestecate #ntre ele #n propor"ii di*erite0
un *el de Ksup primordial@ a democra"iei romneti0 rezultnd din acest amestec un nou
cmp de putere0 #n care cele patru puteri au caracteristici noi0 pstrnd inevita$il unele
caracteristici anterioare. 7utem considera acest mod de renatere social un caz tipic de
reciclare a elitelor. 1eea ce este deose$it de important de su$liniat este *aptul c i #nainte de
1'%' i dup 1'%'0 puteea sim$olic a *ost i este strns legat de celelalte trei puteri0
asigurndu8le legitimitatea #n *a"a cet"enilor. K,ai mult0 e3ercitarea puterii de ctre
autorit"ile politice i religioase a *ost #ntotdeauna strns legat de compararea i controlarea
in*orma"iei i a comunicrii0 ilustrate de rolul scri$ilor #n secolele timpurii i de cel al
diverselor agen"ii de la organiza"iile care alctuiesc statisticile o*iciale pn la *unc"ionarii
din domeniul rela"iilor cu pu$licul #n societ"ile noastre de astzi@.
25
,ass8media0 parte a puterii sim$olice0 au avut #n ;omnia dup 1'%' cea mai
spectaculoas evolu"ie dintre cele patru puteri0 pentru c0 *iind *oarte pu"in dezvoltate0 au
a$sor$it un numr *oarte mare de persoane *r nici o e3perien" #n domeniu. :ns mass8media
din ;omnia au #nceput s se dezvolte #ntr8o perioad #n care la nivel interna"ional se a&unsese
de&a la companii multina"ionale0 #ntr8o perioad #n care &urnalismul tradi"ional era pe cale de
dispari"ie #n "rile occidentale odat cu sc)im$area statutului &urnalitilor. 5ac pn #n anii
S%0 &urnalitii se considerau c lucreaz #n slu&$a $inelui pu$lic0 #n general0 un *el de Kcavaleri
ai drept"ii@0 astzi0 #n trusturile media0 &urnalitilor li s8a restrns aria $inelui #n numele cruia
lucrez la $inele companiei0 al interesului ac"ionarilor. /ctivitatea lor tre$uie s aduc pro*it
imediat i cine nu #n"elege acest lucru este eliminat0 ca *iind ine*icient pentru organiza"ie. :n
raportul #ntocmit de 7ro(ect for 6=cellence in <ournalism pu$licat la #nceputul anului 200-0
24
!)ompson 6. Wo)n0 ,edia i modernitatea > o terie social a mass-media0 pag. 1%0 .ditura /ntet0 (radea0
1''-
25
id.0 pag. 24
1%
su$ titlul 5nnual /eport 8n The State of the 9e3s &edia se constat cu amrciune c Klupta
#ntre idealiti i conta$ili s8a #nc)eiat. /u #nvins conta$ilii@.
26
Sc)im$area statutului
&urnalitilor a *ost descris *oarte $ine i de ;ic)ard Iapucins4i
2-
&urnalitii s8au trans*ormat #n
media 9or4er. 5e *apt aceasta este una dintre cele mai mari trans*ormri care s8au produs #n
via"a individului #n ;omnia dup 1'%'. /utoritatea i responsa$ilitatea institu"iilor pu$lice sau
diminuat #n *avoarea organiza"iei0 a companiei0 iar propaganda s8a trans*ormat #n rela"ii
pu$lice. /stzi0 via"a individului depinde #n mare msur de compania la care lucreaz.
1ompeten"a este un parametru vala$il doar #n interiorul organiza"iei.
;evenind la statutul &urnalitilor #n trusturile media din ;omnia0 din e3perien"a proprie
de 15 ani #n audiovizualul romnesc0 putem spune c li$ertatea lor de micare a #nceput s se
restrng vizi$il dup 1''-0 #ncet dar sigur. ,ass8media din ;omnia i &urnalitii au srit
practic peste o perioad istoric parcurs de presa occidental0 epoca marii li$ert"i
pro*esionale. /*irmm acest lucru pentru c iat care au *ost condi"iile #n care a renscut presa
*rancez dup cel de8al doilea rz$oi mondial=@ 7resa nu este un instrument de pro*it
comercial. .ste un instrument de cultur. ,isiunea sa este de a o*eri in*orma"ii e3acte0 de a
apra ideile0 de a servi cauzei progresului uman. 7resa nu8i poate #ndeplini misiunea sa dect
#n li$ertate i pentru li$ertate. 7resa este li$er atunci cnd nu depinde nici de guvern0 nici de
puterea $anilor0 ci doar de contiin"a &urnalitilor i a pu$licului@.
2%
/cestea erau prevederi din
legea 6ic)et0 legea presei *ranceze adoptat #n data de 2 aprilie 1'4-. 7revederi similare au
e3istat #n toate "rile occidentale.
<a nivelul anului 200- putem vor$i de o polarizare clar a mass8media din ;omnia. /tt
interesele economice ct i interesele politice i rela"iile cu centrele de putere e3terne sunt
vizi$ile c)iar i pentru omul o$inuit. !ematica mani)eist0 lupta #ntre $ine i ru #ntre
democra"i i comuniti i securiti este pe cale de dispari"ie i putem considera acest lucru un
semn de maturitate a societ"ii romneti. 5iversele dezvluiri de8a lungul timpului0 inclusiv
campania dosarelor0 au artat c amestecul dup 1'%' al celor patru puteri din societatea
comunist0 puterea politic0 puterea economic0 puterea coercitiv i puterea sim$olic a *cut
ca pcatul originar s *ie distri$uit democratic.
Concluzii
1omportamentul proprietarilor trusturilor media din ;omnia nu este cu nimic di*erit de
cel al omologilor lor din alte "ri. .i au puterea s impun liderii care s le sus"in interesele
sau s8i #mpiedice pe cei care nu le sunt apropia"i s accead la putere. <iderii politici din
;omnia sunt din ce #n ce mai mult produsul unui mecanism comple3 de interese economice
i geopolitice. 7uterea politic este din ce #n ce mai aparent0 puterea real din ce #n ce mai
pu"in vizi$il.
1oncentrarea mass8media reduce inevita$il pluralitatea punctelor de vedere. /ceeai
comentatori0 aceeai e3per"i apar la aproape toate televiziunile nelsndu8i pu$licului nicio
ans pentru alte puncte de vedere. 7ro$lemele omului o$inuit au disprut #n cea mai mare
parte din agenda media. 7oate pentru c nu aduc audien"0 poate pentru c &urnalitii sunt din
ce #n ce mai gr$i"i i nu au timpul s transpun in*orma"ia #ntr8o poveste atrgtoare. Rtirile
au devenit o mar* ca oricare alta0 *r coloratur social.
26
)ttp.999.stateo*t)ene9smedia.com820068printa$le
2-
Stavre Ion0 /econstrucia societii rom0neti cu a(utorul audiovizualului, pag....ditura >emira0 6ucureti0
2004
2%
5ossier sur <e !iers Secteur /udiovisuel= 7lus )u$une alternative, une necesite0 pag. 10 articol disponi$il la
)ttp=[[999.o$servatoire medias.in*o[article.143.)tml
1'
,ass8media din #ntreaga lume sunt din ce #n ce mai polarizate0 mai anga&ate politic.
/devrul organiza"iei din care *aci parte este mai presus de $inele pu$lic0 concept speci*ic
anilor -08%00 anii de glorie ai mass8media occidentale. 1eea ce conteaz astzi este
pluri*ormitatea0 posi$ilitatea pu$licului de a se in*orma i de la concuren"0 dac aceasta mai
e3ist.
6e ce oamenii se uit la televizor.
!eleviziunea este un canal de comunicare care a evoluat spectaculos dup cel de8al doilea
rz$oi mondial. :ntrziat de rz$oi0 cercetrile *useser duse pn la *aza e3ploatrii
comerciale0 televiziunea i8a luat revana dup 1'500 devenind cel mai important canal de
comunicare0 trans*ormnd *undamental i industria cinematogra*ic. 5up 1''00 televiziunea
a mai *cut un salt0 datorit te)nologiei digitale0 a&ungnd un canal de comunicare *oarte
accesi$il0 rivaliznd din acest punct de vedere cu radioul. ,ai mult dect att0 asistm la
convergen"a mai multor medii de comunicare0 transmisia de date0 voce i imagini #ntr8unul
singur0 internetul. 1teva e3emple pot *i edi*icatoare= grani"a #ntre tele*on i internet este pe
cale de dispari"ie0 avem te)nologii $road$and pentru tele*onia *i30 capa$ile s trasmit
3+$[sec0 su*icient pentru a urmri un *ilm on8line pe internet0 avem te)nologii 3+ care pot
transmite imagini prin tele*onia mo$il8+S,0 de la spoturi muzicale la programe #ntregi de
televiziune.
(dat cu dezvoltarea televiziunii0 cercetrile #n domeniul teoriei comunicrii au #ncercat s
rspund la #ntre$area= de ce oamenii se uit la televizorQ 2na dintre teoriile cu in*luen" #n
domeniul cercetrilor privind mass8media este teoria Kutilizrilor i a recompenselor@0 al*el
spus0 privitul ocazional la televizor poate duce la o recompens0 care poate *i satis*acerea unor
nevoi ocazionale. /cest ung)i de a$odare a rela"iei #ntre telepectatori i televiziune se
concentreaz asupra rspunsului la #ntre$area Kde ce oamenii se uit la televizor@ i *oarte
pu"in asupra con"inutului a ceea ce oamenii vd la televizor. 1ercetrile tradi"ionale #n
domeniul teoriei comunicrii s8au concentrat asupra e*ectelor media asupra pu$licului0
considernd0 ca ipotez de lucru0 c audien"a este omogen. !eoria Kutilizrilor i a
recompenselor@ apar"ine altei coli de gndire #n domeniul comunicrii0 preocupat de Kceea
ce *ac oamenii cu produsele media@. .vident c #n acest caz se poate o$"ine un numr *oarte
mare de rspunsuri i interpretri. !otui0 anumi"i cercettori au su$liniat *aptul c0 la limit0
recompensele pot *i interpretate ca e*ecte ale consumului de produse media. ( situa"ie
comun #ntlnit mai ales la cei care cltoresc mult0 este Krecompensa@ o*erit de televiziune
pentru cltorul gr$it0 care nu are timp pentru rela3are #n ora i apeleaz la televizorul din
camera de )otel0 pentru o or de rela3are. ( concluzie este cert0 televiziunea este cel mai
ie*tin divertisment i privitul la televizor a&ut telespectatorii s evadeze din realitatea
cotidian0 proiectndu8i0 c)iar i pentru o perioad limitat de timp0 #ntr8un univers lipsit de
gri&i0 #n care ateptrile lor se pot #mplini0 evident0 iluzoriu.
Teoria utilizrilor i a recompenselor
!eoria utilizrilor i a recompenselor a aprut pentru prima oar #n anii S400 revenind #n
anii S-0 i prima &umtate a anilor S%0. Studiile din anii S400 considerate perioada clasic a
teoriei utilizrilor i recompenselor0 au *ost e*ectuate de 6iroul de 1ercetare Social /plicat
de la >e9 Tor4 ?care au permis ela$orarea unei tipologii ale motivelor pentru care audien"a
ascult serialele radio*onice i programele de #ntre$ri i rspunsuri@.
2'
/cest tip de a$ordare
,c]uail 5enis0 Ainda)l Sven0 &odele ale comunicrii, pag. ?, .ditura comunicare.ro0 6ucureeti0 2001
20
deriv din paradigma *unc"ionalist a tiin"elor sociale0 care prezint consumul de mass8media
ca rezultat al necesit"ii recompensrii nevoilor sociale sau psi)ologice ale individului. 1ei
mai cunoscu"i reprezenta"i ai acestui curent sunt 6lumler i Iatz
30
. 1on*orm lui 6lumler i
Iatz0 mass8media se a*l #n competi"ie cu alte surse de recompense pentru pu$lic0 #ns
recompensele rezultate #n urma consumului de televiziune pot *i o$"inute din modul di*erit de
percepere a progamelor urmrite= poate rezulta o anume recompens din con"inutul
programului0 de e3emplu plcerea de a urmri un *ilm poli"ist0 un t)rillerO un alt gen de
recompens poate rezulta din *amiliaritatea cu un anumit gen0 cum ar *i telenovelele sau din
conte3tul social #n care este urmrit programul respectiv0 de e3emplu0 seara cu #ntreaga
*amilie sau ca o rela3are general0 la s*rit de sptmn. .3ist evident i alte modalit"i de
satis*acere a nevoilor pu$licului= prin vacan"e0 cltorii0 audierea unor concerte live0 )o$$E8
uri0 etc. Uillman0 citat de 5enis ,c]uail
31
0 a studiat *elul #n care starea su*leteasc a
telespectatorilor in*luen"eaz alegerea programului televiziune= cei plictisi"i aleg programele
cu con"inut incitant0 captivant0 iar cei stresa"i aleg programele cu con"inut rela3ant. 2rmrirea
aceluiai program de televiziune poate recompensa nevoi di*erite pentru telespectatori di*eri"i.
>evoile speci*ice ale telespectatorilor depind de personalitatea lor0 de vrsta lor0 de nivelul de
educa"ie i de pozi"ia social. /ceast ultim caracteristic a personalit"ii individului0 pozi"ia
social0 a generat apari"ia unor canale de comunicare de ni= periodice de ni0 televiziuni de
ni Ce3= canalul tv /ntena 4 din cadul trustului IntactD i c)iar *ormate radio de ni Ce3=
radiourile F, care di*uzeaz muzic clasicD. 1ercettoarea Wudit) van .vra
32
a a&uns la
concluzia c adolescen"ii i tinerii urmresc programele de televiziune mai ales pentru a se
in*orma0 ceea ce #i *ace mai vulnera$ili #n *a"a in*luen"ei programelor respective. 2n alt studiu
semni*icativ0 realizat #n spiritul teoriei utilizrilor i recompenselor este cel al lui ,c]uail
33
0
care s8a $azat pe c)estionare distri$uite consumatorilor de televiziune0 #n care li sa cerut s
rspund la #ntre$area de ce urmresc programele de televiziune. 1u a&utorul aceluiai
c)estionar vor *i culese date despre audien"0 se30 vrst0 ocupa"ie0 nivel educa"ional.
34
1ele
patru categorii de recompense ale lui ,c]uail sunt urmtoarele=
1. In*ormarea. /ceast categorie de recompense are #n vedere satis*acerea curiozit"ii i
cunoaterea interesului general0 #nv"area0 autoinstruirea0 identi*icarea elementelor de
securitate personal prin cunoatere.
2. Identitate personal./cest gen de recompens are #n vedere de*inirea ct mai e*icient
a re*eren"ialului personal0 #m$unt"irea capacit"ii de intrepretare individual a
realit"ii0 a valorilor ordinii sociale.
3. 5ivertisment= rela3are0 evadarea din constrngerile vie"ii zilnice0 descrcarea
emo"ional0 o$"inerea de satis*ac"ii culturale sau estetice.
4. Supraveg)erea0 integrarea i interac"iunea social= acest categorie de satis*ac"ie se
re*er la nevoia de in*ormare #n legtur cu lumea deose$it de complicat #n care
trim0 la capacitatea de a interac"iona cu *amilia0 cu prietenii0 la a$ilitatea de agsi o
$az de dialog cu semenii.
!ot #n tradi"ia teoriei utilizrilor i recompenselor este i studiul lui Wames <ull
35
0 care ne
o*er o tipologie a utilizrilor sociale ale televiziunii0 studiul *iind $azat pe cercetri
etnogra*ice=
1. 2tilizri ale televiziunii din perspectiv structural=
30
6lumler W. +.0 Iatz. ..0 The ,ses of &ass +ommunication, >e9$urE 7ar40 1/= Sage0 1'-4
31
,c]uail 5enis0 &ass +ommunication Theor'- 5n .ntroduction, pag. @?A, <ondon0 Sage0 1'%-
32
.vra Wudit)0 Television and +hild :evelopment, pag. BB-B9, Billsdale0 >W= <a9rence .rl$aum0 1''0
33
,c]uail 5enis0 &ass +ommunication Theor'- 5n .ntroduction, pag. B?, <ondon0 Sage0 1'%-
34
Fis4e Wo)n0 .ntroducere Cn tiinele comunicrii, pag. @B, .ditura 7olirom0 Iai0 2003
35
<ull Wames0 .nside %amil' Die3ing- 6tnografic /esearch on Television$s 5udiences, pag. ??-"A, ;outlege0
<ondon0 1''0
21
L televiziunea ca mediu am$iental= divertisment0 zgomot de *ond0 companion
Ceste cazul clasic al celor care se deplaseaz *oarte mult i care *olosesc
televiziunea ca un companion #n momentele de scurt li$ertateD.
L televiziunea cu rol de regulator social= separarea timpului li$er de timpul de
munc0 impunerea de su$iecte #n dez$aterea pu$lic.
2. 2tilizri ale televiziunii din perspectiv rela"ional=
L *acilitarea comunicrii= reducerea an3iet"ii0 sta$ilirea agendei pentru discu"ii0
clari*icarea valorilor sociale.
L a*ilierea sau esc)ivarea de la implicarea social= men"inerea rela"iilor sociale0
reducerea con*lictelor0 consolidarea solidarit"ii *amiliei.
L #nv"area social= luarea deciziilor0 modelarea comportamentelor0 rezolvarea
pro$lemelor0 transmiterea valorilor0 legitimarea0 diseminarea in*orma"iilor0
su$stitut al colii.
L de*inirea competen"elor i capacitatea de dominare= rol de legi*erare0 rol de
consolidare0 se su$stituie #n rolul de descriere a lumii0 e3ercit autoritatea0
L validare intelectual0 gardian al evenimentelor care se trans*orm #n tiri0
*aciliteaz argumentarea.
.vident c teoria utilizrii i a recompenselor are i critici care consider c aceasta tinde
s ignore conte3tul socio8cultural. 1riticii acestei torii mai consider c este e3agerat rolul
activ i alegerea contient a pu$licului. 5e asemena0 ei consider c este e3agerat
interpretarea con*orm creia audien"a poate o$"ine aproape orice *el de recompens din
con"inutul emisiunilor de televiziune. 5ac am insista asupra *aptului c pu$licul va o$"ine
#ntotdeauna o recompens din consumul de emisiuni de televiziune0 am *i #n pozi"ia de a nu
putea avea nici un *el de atitudine critic #n ceea ce privete con"inutul a ceea ce mass8media
o*er. Ipoteza con*orm creia pu$licul alege ra"ional0 logic nu a *ost con*imat #ntotdeauna de
dovezi empirice. 2n model de alegere a programelor este propus de Ae$ster i Aa4s)lag0 citat
de ,c]uail.
36
1on*orm acestui model0 alegerea programului depinde de nevoile
telespectatorului0 de grupul #n cadrul cruia are loc vizionarea0 de cunoaterea o*ertei de
programe de ctre telespectator0 de pre*erin"ele pentru un tip de programe0 de pre*erin"ele
pentru programe speci*ice i de posi$ilit"ile de alegere #ntre programe.
Teoria cultivrii
!eoria cultivrii0 denumit uneori ipoteza cultivrii sau analiza cultivrii0 a *ost dezvoltat
de pro*esorul +eorge +er$ner0 decanul K/nnen$erg Sc)ool o* 1ommunication@ din cadrul
universit"ii 7ennsElvania. .l a #nceput un mare proiect de cercetare la mi&locul anilor S600
?1ultural Indicators@ care urmrea s studieze dac i cum privitul la televizor ar putea s
in*luen"eze ideile telespectatorilor despre cum este lumea real0 de zi cu zi. !eoria cultivrii se
#nscrie #n tradi"ia cercetrilor privind e*ectele telelviziunii asupra consumatorilor. /dep"ii
teoriei cultivrii sus"ineau c televiziunea produce e*ecte pe termen lung0 #mpr"ite #n mici0
graduale0 indirecte dar cumulative i semni*icative. /ceti sus"intori accentuau ee*ectele
televiziunii asupra atitudinilor pu$licului dect asupra comportamentului indivizilor. 7rivitul
intens0 de lung durat la televizor era considerat ca o modalitate prin care se cultivau
atitudini0 care erau mai degra$ #n acord cu lumea proiectat de programele de televiziune
dect cu lumea real0 de zi cu zi. 7rivitul la televizor poate duce la inducerea unui set de valori
#n mintea telespectatorilor0 de e3emplu despre violen"0 dincolo de orice tip de e*ecte0 poate
induce un comportament violent. Sus"intorii teoriei cultivrii identi*ic e*ectele pe dou
,c]uail 5enis0 Ainda)l Steven0 &odele ale comunicrii, pag. ?E, .ditura comunicare.ro0 6ucureti0 2001
22
niveluri= e*ecte de nivel unu C*irst orderD0 care sunt e*ecte re*eritoare la credin"ele generale
despre lume0 cum ar *i domina"ia violen"ei #n societate i e*ecte de de nivelul doi Csecond
orderD0 cum sunt atitudinile speci*ice *a" de lege i ordine sau siguran"a personal.
+er$ner argumenteaz c mass8media cultiv atitudini i valori care sunt de&a prezente #n
cultura "rii respective0 c propag aceste valori printre mem$rii societ"ii0 crend ast*el un
adevrat liant social. +er$ner mai sus"ine c televiziunea0 prin modul su de rela"ionare cu
pu$licul0 orienteaz cultivarea perspectivelor politice de mi&loc0 de centru ale societ"ii
respective. 5ac evalum cu aten"ie evolu"ia audiovizualului romnesc dup 1'%'0 #n acord i
cu e3perien"a autorului0 putem a*irma c televiziunea a *ost o arm cultural0 #n mna
esta$lis)mentului tranzi"iei. / *ost *olosit pentru controlul ordinii sociale Coricine #i
amintete de prima revolu"ie din lume televizatD0 pentru destructurarea vec)ii ordini sociale i
recon*igurarea noii ordini sociale0 cu noile valori0 cu noile persona&e pu$lice. /ceast realitate
din ;omnia privind televiziunea dup 1'%' este *oarte $ine teoretizat de !)omson. /cesta
consider c putem distinge #n societate patru tipuri de putere= puterea economic0 puterea
politic0 puterea coercitiv Cputerea militar0 indi*erent de culoarea uni*ormelorD i puterea
sim$olic sau puterea cultural0 care include mi&loacele de in*ormare i comunicare. K:n
producerea *ormelor sim$olice0 indivizii #i apropie tot *elul de resurse Cresurse te)nice de
*i3are a mesa&ului0 de transmitere a acestuiaD0 pentru a #ndeplini ac"iuni care pot interveni #n
cursul evenimentelor i care au di*erite tipuri de consecin"e...este vor$a de acea capacitate de a
interveni #n cursul evenimentelor0 de a in*luen"a ac"iunile celorlal"i i de a crea0 #ntr8adevr0
evenimente0 prin intermediul producerii i transmiterii *ormelor sim$olice@.
3-
,ass8media0
deci i televiziunea0 sunt instrumente ale celorlalte puteri0 puterea politic0 economic i
militar.
Sus"intorii teoriei cultivrii consider mass8media ca *iind un vector de socializare a
mem$rilor societ"ii i investig)eaz dac consumatorii de televiziune a&ung s cread din ce
#n ce mai mult versiunea realit"ii o*erit de programele de televiziune0 cu ct stau mai mult #n
*a"a televizorului. +er$ner i ec)ipa sa au o$servat c drama de televiziune C*ilmD are o mic
in*luen" dar semni*icativ asupra atitudinilor0 credin"elor i &udec"ilor de valoare ale
telespectatorilor re*eritoare la lumea real. !eleviziunea0 acum mai mult ca niciodat0 domin
lumea sim$olurilor care ne #ncon&oar. ,c]uail i Ainda)l
3%
consider c teoria cultivrii
prezint televiziunea nu ca o *ereastr ctre lume0 o re*lectare a lumii0 ci o lume #n sine.
Scurt istorie a apariiei i evoluiei televiziunii
Ideile timpurii privind realizarea televiziunii au aprut #nc din anul 1%-5 i invocau
principiul transmiterii simultane a *iecrui element de imagine prin cte un canal separat. :ns
televiziunea digital de azi este *oarte departe de prototipurile ini"iale. Ideea de televiziune a
*ost e3primat pu$lic pentru prima oar de doi oameni de tiin" $ritanici0 /Erton i 7errE. :n
anii 1%-581%%0 au #nceput s *ie produse primele celule *otoelectrice Csau *otoceluleD0 care
trans*ormau lumina #n curent electric. /Erton i 7errE au descoperit c un ir de asemenea
celule putea #nregistra varia"iile #n intensitate ale unei imagini 8 o serie de lentile putea s
*ocalizeze pe celula lumina de pe *iecare por"iune a imaginii0 i cu ct era atins de lumin
mai mult0 cu att genera un curent mai puternic. 5ac curentul de la celule putea *i *olosit
pentru a aprinde un ir corespunztor de $ecuri a*lat #ntr8un alt loc0 atunci imaginea putea *i
reprodus. 5ei /Erton i 7errE i8au prezentat sistemul #n 1%%00 el nu putea *i pus #n aplicare0
#n principal deoarece curen"ii electrici genera"i de *otocelule erau prea sla$i pentru a aprinde
$ecurile i nu se cunotea un mod de a8i *ace mai puternici. !ot #n acelai an0 1%%00 A. ..
!)omson Wo)n 6.0 &edia i modernitatea, pag. @, .ditura /ntet0 6ucureti
,c]uail 5enis0 Ainda)l Steven0 &odele ale comunicrii, pag. !!, .ditura comunicare.ro0 6ucureti0 2001
23
Sa9Eer #n S2/ i ,aurice <e$lanc #n Fran"a au propus principiul secven"ial0 adoptat de alt*el
#n toate tipurile de televiziune care s8au dezvoltat ulterior.
Sistemul de televiziune *unc"ional a tre$uit s atepte pn la inventarea triodei #n 1'06.
/cest tu$ electronic0 conceput de americanul <ee de Forest0 putea ampli*ica semnale mici0 ca
cele de la *otocelulele lui >ip4o90 i a permis inventatorului sco"ian Wo)n <ogie 6aird s
construiasc sisteme de televiziune *unc"ionale $azate pe ideea cu discul de scanare a lui
>ip4o9. #n 1'26 6aird a reuit s prezinte ^vederea prin radio^ 8 transmiterea semnalelor de
televiziune prin unde radio. 1a rezultat0 Societatea 6ritanic de ;adiodi*uziune C661D a
#nceput un serviciu e3perimental de televiziune #n 1'32.
:n 1'360 cnd 6618ul a #nceput di*uzrile regulate0 societatea adoptase de&a un alt sistem
dezvoltat de compania american ,arconi[.,I. >oul sistem era #n #ntregime electronic0 *r
pr"i mo$ile 8 devenind mult mai *ia$il dect sistemul mecanic 6aird.
Imaginile erau produse de un tu$ cu raze catodice0 #n care un *ascicul de electroni era
$om$ardat pe su$stan"e c)imice *os*orescente pe partea interioar a unui ecran de sticl. <a
#nceput0 imaginile ,arconi erau #mpr"ite #n 405 linii orizontale pentru scanare0 dar numrul
acestora a crescut mai trziu la 625 de linii C525 #n Statele 2niteD 8 ast*el c acest sistem
electronic avea o calitate mai $un a imaginii dect televiziunea lui 6aird0 care utiliza doar 30
de linii. Sistemul ,arconi s8a dovedit att de reuit0 #nct st la $aza tuturor sistemelor
moderne de televiziune.
2rmtoarele descoperiri importante din domeniul electronicii au &alonat aparitia
televiziunii=
Ltu$ul cu raza catodic0 avnd ecran *luorescent C1%'-D0 descoperit de germanul I. F. 6raun0
L#n anul 1'04 W. /. Fleming a inventat tu$ul cu doi electrozi0
L#n anul 1'06 americanul <ee 5e Forest a adugat o gril tu$ului lui Fleming0 *cndu8l s
ampli*ice semnalele electrice0
L#n anul 1'0% sco"ianul /. /. 1amp$ell S9inton a $revetat de*le3ia magnetic0
L#n anul 1'1- 5. ,. ,oore #n S2/ a $revetat modularea luminii #n cadrul lmpii cu neon0
L#n anul 1'23 au #nceput e3perimentele cu televiziunea mecanic0
Lpana in 1'30 au *ost *cute e3perimente c)iar i pentru televiziunea #n culori.
Saltul nu ar *i *ost posi$il *r inven"ia lui P. I. U9orE4in C*izician american de origine
rusD care a $revetat #n anul 1'23 tu$ul camerei de luat vederi0 iconoscopul. :n anul 1'410
1omisia *ederal de comunica"ii CF11D a adoptat0 dup un an de dez$ateri #n 1omitetul
na"ional pentru sistemul de televiziune C!)e >ational !elevision SEstem 1ommitteeD
standardul televiziunii al$8negru. Imaginea se descompune #n 525 de linii i se transmite cu 60
de semicadre pe secund C30 de imagini pe secundD. .uropenii vor adopta standardul cu 625
de linii i 50 de semicadre. !ot F11 a apro$at sistemul >!S1 #n culori la 1- decem$rie 1'530
iar din 22 ianuarie 1'540 sistemul >!S1 #n culori a intrat in vigoare0 asigurnd emiterea
programelor pentru pu$lic. :n mai pu"in de 50 de ani de e3isten"0 televiziunea a a&uns sa
domine peisa&ul audiovizual0 Kceea ce l8a *acut pe cercettorul american 7ercE !annen$aum
s8i intituleze #n glum un studiu= dac un copac cade #ntr8o pdure i nu este reluat la
televiziune0 oare copacul a czut #n realitateQ@.
3'
:ntr8un interviu ulterior0 !annen$aum a
declarat c ar *i putut alege pentru studiul su un titlu mai agresiv= K5ac un copac cade la
televiziune0 #nseamn c el a czut realmente@.
40
!eleviziunea este un canal de comunicare care a preluat de la *ilm e3perien"a utilizrii
imaginii i de la radio e3perien"a utilizrii sunetului. :n perioada #n care se de*initivau
cercetrile te)nice pentru di*uzarea i recep"ia semnalului de televiziune0 *ilmul se dezvolta
spectaculos. .volu"ia i dezvoltarea *ilmului poate *i #mpr"it #n urmtoarele etape=
3'
LLL 5e la sile3 la siliciu0 colec"ie de studii su$ #ngri&irea lui +iovanni +iovannini0 pag. 2040 .ditura !e)nic0
6ucureti0 1'%'.
40
!annen$aum 7ercE0 1onvor$iri cu 1arlo Santori0 revista universit"ii 6er4eleE0 septem$rie 1'%2.
24
4) 7erioada de pionerat) 7erioada 1'%5 1'10 este perioada #n care se pun $azele
industriei *ilmului. /tunci aprea prima camer de *ilmat0 primul actor de *ilm0 aprea primul
stoc de *ilme scoase la vnzare. !otul era nou. 1ele mai multe *ilme erau documentare sau
piese de teatru #nregistrate. 7rima nara"iune cinematogra*ic cu o durat de apro3imativ de 5
minute0 care #ncepuse s *ie o durat standard #n &urul anului 1'050 a *ost a lui +eorge ,elies
i s8a #ntitulat F5 trip to the moonG. /nul apari"iei a *ost 1'02.
2. 7erioada 8ilmului mut1 4944 9 4926) :n aceast perioad sunt puse la punct0 pas cu
pas0 te)nicile de editare0 care vor *i preluate #n totalitate0 mai trziu de televiziune. :n aceast
perioad apar dramele care #nlocuiesc simpla *ilmare a pieselor de teatru. :n aceast perioad
apar povetile epice mute i alte genuri cinematogra*ice. Stelele acestei perioade au *ost
1)aplin0 1)aneE0 +ri**it)0 7ic4*ord and 1ecile de,ille. 2ltimul a *ost un mare regizor care a
pus la punct editarea paralel0 larg utilizat #n prezent #n cinematogra*ie i televiziune.
3. 0ra de dinaintea celui de-al doilea rz!oi mondial1 492: 9 49;0) 1ele mai multe
re*eriri la aceast epoc con"in sintagma Kepoca *ilmului vor$itor@0 poate pentru c #n 1'2- a
aprut primul *ilm vor$it0 F+0ntreul de (azzG. Filmul color a aprut dup 1'300 au *ost
create genuri distincte de *ilm #n aceast perioad. !ot #n aceast perioad a aprut i anima"ia.
7u$licul mergea la matineu0 teatrele se e3tindeau0 star sistemul era pus la punct. >umele care
au rezistat din aceast perioad au *ost +a$le0 1apra0 Ford0 BaEes. /pari"ia sonorului a *ost o
dram pentru mul"i actori #ntruct vocile lor nu erau Kcinematogra*ice@. Se poate spune c din
epoca *ilmului mut doar doi actori au rezistat0 comicii <aurel i BardE0 cunoscu"i pu$licului ca
Stan i 6ran. :n aceast perioad calitatea devine regul de aur0 de alt*el mult rvnitul premiu
(scar apare tot #n aceast perioad. 1)iar dac unele te)nici *olosite #n perioada respectiv
par primitive astzi0 ele sunt totui uimitoare ca realizare.
4. 0poca de aur a 8ilmului1 49;4 9 49<;) 1el de8al doilea rz$oi mondial a indus o
mul"ime de modi*icri #n industria *ilmului. :n timpul celui de8al doilea rz$oi mondial i
dup a #n*lorit comedia0 iar *ilmul muzical a devenit rege. !ot atunci *ilmele )oror au devenit
populare0 *r a *olosi prea multe e*ecte speciale0 din cauza *aptului c produc"ia era *oarte
scump. 6ugetul unui *ilm a creat #n acea perioad o di*eren" *oarte vizi$il #ntre *ilmele cu
$uget sczut i *ilmele cu $uget mare. /stzi0 studiourile de *ilm *olosesc curent $ugete
reduse pentru a realiza *ilm dup *ilm0 Kfilm de masG0 ca #n cazul unei linii de asam$lare.
Standardizarea produc"iei este att de mare astzi0 #nct se poate spune c produc"i unui *ilm
seamn cu produc"ia unui automo$il0 din perspectiva organizrii produc"iei. /lte genuri care
au aprut #n aceast perioad au *ost *ilmele cu gangsteri0 *ilmul tiin"i*ico8*antastic #n 1'500
au aprut su$genurile *ilmele cu detectivi0 *ilmele de e3plorri. >umele mari care au marcat
aceast perioad au *ost /$$ott i 1ostello0 +rant0 6ogart0 Bep$urn0 1agneE0 Fonda Ste9art0
cele$rul cuplu de dansatori Fred /staire i +ingE ;ogers.
5. 0ra de tranziie1 49<< 9 4966) :n aceast perioad asistm la maturizarea produc"iei de
*ilm #n #ntreaga lume i #n special la BollE9ood0 unde apar *ilmele de avangard i *ilmele de
art. Studiourile de *ilm de la BollE9ood pierd o parte din puterea pe care o aveau #n
domeniul distri$u"iei *ilmelor0 *ilmul color domin produc"iile. :n aceast perioad apare i
marele inamic al *ilmului0 televiziunea0 ceea ce impune din nou standarde de calitate ridicate
pentru *ilme. ,arile nume din aceast perioad sunt Bitc)coc40 1urtis0 ,unroe0 6ardot i
!aElor. :n aceast perioad #ncepe rz$oiul rece iar la BollE9ood apar listele negre din
perioada mc1)artEst CWosep) ,c1art)E a *ost un senator american care s8a autoproclamat
campionul luptei #mpotriva comunitilor din Statele 2nite ale /mericii0 la #nceputul rz$oiului
receO el redactat o list cu apro3imativ 3.000 de persoane pe care le8a acuzat c erau
25
mem$ri sau simpatizan"i ai partidului 1omunist /merican0 cele mai multe persoane *iind din
industria *ilmului. 2lterior0 dup ce a #nceput s8i atace i pe o*i"erii armatei americane0
preedintele .isen)o9er s8a )otrt s scape de elD. 1aracteristica *undamendal a acestei
periode este c atunci s8a maturizat produc"ia de *ilm.
6. 0poca de argint1 496: 9 49:9) Se poate spune c #n acest moment al dezvoltrii
*ilmului0 BollE9ood8ul tie s *ac cu adevrat *ilme. :n aceast perioad0 *ilmele cu $uget
redus nu mai sunt considerate FslabeG0 $ugetul redus nemai*iind un aspect negativ din punct
de vedere al calit"ii *ilmului. .poca de argint #ncepe cu di*uzarea *ilmelor FThe 1raduateG i
KHonnie i +l'deG i se s*rete cu apari"ia *ilmelor FStar 2ars > /zboiul stelelorG i FStar
Trek- The &otion 7ictureG. 5intre numele de rezonan" din aceast perioad amintim pe
Francis 1oppola0 Bo**man0 Fonda0 Spiel$erg i 6randon.
-. 0poca modern1 dup 4950) 7unctul de re*erin" al #nceputului acestei perioade este
utilizarea e*ectelor speciale realizate cu a&utorul computerului. 5in acest motiv0 epoca
modern #ncepe cu K/zboiul stelelorG 0 care a apru totui #n anul 1'--. 5in motive
didactice0 epoca modern #ncepe cu *ilmul K.mperiul contraatacG0 aprut c)iar #n anul 1'%0.
/ceast perioad este caracterizat de utilizarea computerelor la editare0 de utilizarea #n mas
de consumatori a aparatului video C)ome videoD0 de apari"ia televiziunii prin ca$lu i apari"ia
*ilmelor $loc4 $uster cu $ugete de zeci de milioane de dolari. >umele care au marcat aceast
perioad sunt Stalone0 Sc)9artzenegger0 6urton0 Uemec4is0 1onnerE0 >ic)olson0 1ostner0
;o$erts0 ,oore i Speil$erg.
Televiziunea n 2omnia
:n ;omnia0 primele #ncercri de transmitere la distan"0 pe cale electric0 a imaginilor0 se
*ac #n anul 1'2% de ctre +eorge 1ristescu. :n anul 1'3- a *ost realizat o emisiune de
televiziune la Facultatea de Rtiin"e din 6ucureti0 iar #n anul 1'3' au *ost realizate cteva
demonstra"ii pu$lice. :n anul 1'53 au #nceput pro$ele te)nice pentru un emi"tor de
televiziune de construc"ie romneasc0 realizat su$ conducerea pro*esorului /le3andru
Sptaru0 iar la 23 august 1'55 a #nceput di*uzarea #n 6ucureti a primelor emisiuni cu caracter
regulat.
Televiziunea de stat
!eleviziunea de stat a *ost inaugurat la data de 31 decem$rie 1'560 cnd a avut loc prima
emisiune a Studioului >a"ional de !eleviziune0 amena&at #n 6ucureti0 str. ,oliere nr. 2.
.mi"torul0 amplasat #n turnul cldirii cunoscute su$ numele ^1asa Scnteii^ #nainte de 1'%'
i apoi de 1asa presei <i$ere dup 1'%'0 avea o putere de 22 490 #n standard 5 i emitea pe
canalul 2. Se poate considera c aceasta este data de natere a institu"iei !eleviziunii ;omne0
singura televiziune e3istent #n ;omnia pn dup ;evolu"ia din decem$rie 1'%'0 cnd au
aparut primele televiziuni comerciale0 private.
7rimul car de reporta& !P apare #n 1'5-0 dat la care se #nregistreaz i #n*iin"area unei sta"ii
de recep"ie a emisiunilor e3terioare. :n luna *e$ruarie se transmite #n direct concertul lui Ives
,ontand din Sala Floreasca0 iar #n mai 1'5- se realizeaz prima transmisie sportiv. >oul
centru de televiziune din 1alea 5oro$an"i inaugurat #n 1'6%0 de"ine=
L trei studiouri de produc"ie de mare capacitateO
L un studio de actualit"iO
L un studio de capacitate medie destinat #nregistrrilor muzicaleO
26
8 dou studiouri de prezentare0 grupuri de telecinematogra*0 #nregistrri i monta&
electronic.
/nul urmtor aduce noi grupuri de #nregistrare i monta& electric0 plus o e3tindere a re"elei
a re"elei na"ionale de emi"toare0 numrul a$ona"ilor crescnd de la 500.000 #n 1'65 la 1.5
milioane #n 1'-0.
5ac din 1'6%0 televiziunea emite i pe programul doi0 numrul orelor di*uzate la
#nceputul anilor %0 a&unge #n &urul ci*rei 100. /nuarul statistic al ;omniei C1''%D cuprinde
date re*eritoare la creterea0 dup 1'%'0 a importan"ei acordate televiziunii0 numrul unit"ilor
de program a&ungnd #n 1''- la 2'2013 ore de program.
41
?7n #n 1''00 istoria televiziunii romne se rezum la cea a unei institu"ii unice i
monolitice= !P;0 televiziunea pu$lic creat #n 1'5%.@
42
Televiziunea pu!lic
,odelul serviciului pu$lic este transpus #n practic de ctre 6610 prin *i3area unor
standarde general8vala$ile0 recognosci$ile la toate nivelurile. ( caracteristic esen"ial0
impus #nc de la #nceputurile mani*estrii acestuia este repera$il #n e*icacitatea i
universalitatea serviciului pu$lic. ;euniunea serviciului universal0 precum i e*icacitatea lui a
condus la crearea conceptului unic centralizat0 antrennd #nlocuirea diverselor structuri
regionale printr8un serviciu na"ional standardizat. <imitarea spectrului *recven"elor0 pe de alt
parte0 d natere unui principiu con*orm cruia televiziunea0 creia statul #i acord dreptul de a
emite0 este #nvestit cu o$liga"ii ce depesc interesul privat asupra na"iunii i a cet"enilor.
($iectivitatea serviciului pu$lic tre$uie re*lectat prin caracterului educativ i instructiv al
o*ertei propriu8zise. Intr ast*el #n #ndatoririle serviciului pu$lic demersurile de prezervare i
ameliorare a calit"ii vie"ii0 sociale i culturale a tuturor cet"enilor. 1oncep"ia impus #n
modelul pu$lic asupra telespectatorului elimin no"iunea de consumator i mareaz pe cea de
spectator0 printr8o strategie de promovare a dimensiunii educa"ionale8in*orma"ionale0 #n
detrimentul celei de divertisment. .volu"ia conceptului de serviciu pu$lic tre$uie s comporte
#n mod o$ligatoriu0 aspecte legate de institu"ia #n cauz0 dar i aspecte etice.
:n ciuda s*ritului situa"iei de monopol pu$lic i apari"iei modelului comercial0
avanta&ele culturale i sociale prezente prin intermediul serviciului pu$lic Ccalitate0 nivel0
educa"ie0 servicii universalD se men"in #n continuare #n preocuprile productorilor apar"innd
celor dou sectoare. :ntrirea identit"ii institu"iei na"ionale a serviciului pu$lic intr #ntr8o
perioad de declin0 generat de limitri te)nice de tipul dispari"iei restrngerii spectrului
*recven"elor0 prin care se o*er telespectatorilor multiple posi$ilit"i de op"iune. .ste vor$a
despre o evolu"ie #n sensul interesului pu$lic.
7rin legea >r. 41[1''4 a *ost in*iin"at Societatea ;omn de !eleviziune0 ca serviciu
pu$lic autonom de interes na"ional. .a s8a constituit prin preluarea patrimoniului i
personalului !eleviziunii ;omne0 care0 alturi de ;adiodi*uziunea ;omn0 *cea parte din
mass8media de stat. !ot atunci s8a luat decizia de a separa radioul pu$lic de televiziunea
pu$lic0 crendu8se dou institu"ii independente. :n lume nu e3ist un singur model de
organizare a acestor institu"ii mass8media pu$lice. 5e e3emplu0 #n 1anada0 radioul pu$lic i
televiziunea pu$lic sunt i acum #mpreun0 c)iar dac $ene*iciaz de admnistrare separat.
1onceptul de televiziune pu$lic su$liniaz legtura direct cu pu$licul telespectator0 care
platete ta3a de a$onament pentru serviciile de in*ormare o*erite de aceste institu"ii.
!eleviziunea pu$lic i radioul pu$lic reprezint punerea #n practic a dreptului constitu"ional
al oricrui cet"ean de a *i in*ormat. !eleviziunea pu$lic tre$uie s ai$ o "inuta elevat0 s
/nuarul Statistic al ;omniei0 1''%0 1omisia >a"ional de Statistic
Benne$elle0 +uE1 =<es !elevisions du ,onde@0 pag. 20%0 nr.120 1inem /ction0 1''5.
2-
promoveze valorile culturii na"ionale i s militeze pentru cultivarea demnit"ii umane.
Su$ordonarea televiziunii pu$lice 7arlamentului este e3presia &ocului democratic0
alegtorii sunt cei care decid con*igura"ia la un moment dat a 7arlamentului i tot alegtorii
sunt cei care pltesc Kta3a de in*ormare@. 1ontrolul parlamentar nu e re*er la controlul
editorial0 ci la controlul de ansam$lu0 #n special #n ceea ce privete legalitatea c)eltuirii
*ondurilor.
5up 1'%'0 #n politica editorial a !P; au e3istat dou tendin"e contradictorii= o tendin"
care a urmrit apropierea grilei de cea a televiziunilor comerciale0 su$ prete3tul modernizrii
programelor. :n realitate aceast orientare ascundea incompeten"a de a imagina programe care
s rspund misiunii de televiziune pu$lic a unei "ri a*lat #n plin proces de modernizare
pentru a se integra #n 2niunea .uropean i apetitul pentru ac)izi"ii de programe. / doua
tendin" a *ost aceea de a gsi solu"ii editoriale care s pun televiziunea pu$lic #n serviciul
cet"eanului. / ctigat prima tendin". :n 2niunea .uropean0 televiziunea pu$lic este
sinonim cu calitatea #n audiovizual.
:ntregul peisa& al audiovizualului romnesc a$und de telenovele i emisiuni *acile0 de
concursuri i &ocuri #n care ctig c"iva pe seama celor mul"i care pierd0 de tele*oane care8i
invit pe telespectatori s sune #n numele unei speran"e ce las urme mari #n nota de plat a
tele*onului. !oate acestea la un loc nu *ac dect s ^omoare^ timpul telespectatorilor i s
sporeasc lipsa de in*ormare i orizont a societ"ii romneti.
Televiziunea comercial
5in decem$rie 1'%'0 cnd oamenilor li s8a o*erit dintr8odat0 dup aproape o &umtate de
secol0 dreptul la li$er e3primare0 pn #n mai 1''20 cnd a aprut <egea audiovizualului0
prima reglementare care legi*era pluralismul #n audiovizual0 s8a a$uzat adesea de li$ert"ile
cucerite. /u *ost improvizate0 #n prip0 #n di*erite zone din "ar0 __posturi independente^0 care0
*olosind camere de luat vederi i casete pentru amatori0 di*uzau programe ^li$ere^0 adesea
indecente i lipsite de orice valoare0 prin $unvoin"a sta"iilor de emisie locale. / *ost o
perioad de pionerat0 #n care totul era posi$il0 #n numele democra"iei i a li$ert"ii de
e3primare.
:n aceeai perioad a aprut i postul de televiziune ^Soti^0 reuind s emit cteva luni
c)iar pe canalul 2 al !eleviziunii ;omne0 cu apro$area conducerii acesteia. :n acest *el s8a
dat curs cererilor legitime de creare a unei ^televiziuni alternative^. !eleviziunea Soti n8a avut
#ns suportul material i uman necesar pentru a rezista mai mult timp0 adevratele ^televiziuni
alternative^ aprnd un an mai trziu0 su$ *orma unor societ"i comerciale solide0 create #n
con*ormitate cu prevederile legii. !eleviziunea KSoti@ a *ost un *el de )aiducie #n audiovizual0
pentru c s8au *cut presiuni uriae0 desigur #n numele democra"iei0 de a intra pe a doua
*recven" a televiziunii pu$lice. /lt*el spus Kscula"i8v voi de pe scaune ca s ne aezm noi@.
/pari"ia societatilor private de televiziune #n peisa&ul audiovizualului romnesc a adus cu sine
un du$lu avanta&. #n primul rnd0 s8a creat o competi"ie intre mai multe televiziuni ce #ncearc
s atrag telespectatorii. /cest *apt ar tre$ui s conduc la creterea calit"ii i atractivit"ii
programelor. 1ompeti"ia a *ost cea care a *or"at televiziunea pu$lic s se modernizeze0 att #n
domeniul programelor0 ct i #n domeniul te)nic.
7rimele #ncercri #n domeniul televiziunii private au *ost improviza"ii i s8au #nc)eiat cu
eec. !eleviziunea pu$lic avea cei mai $uni specialiti i cea mai solid $az te)nic0 iar
pentru a putea *i concurat0 era nevoie de o televiziune care s aduc ceva nou i s dispun de
un minimum de mi&loace te)nice i *inanciare. 1u alte cuvinte0 era nevoie0 cel pu"in0 de un
manager $un i de un proprietar care s asigure resursele *inanciare sau de o persoan care s
#ndeplineasc am$ele condi"ii.
:n anii care au trecut de la apari"ia <egii audiovizualului pn la s*arsitul anului 20000
2%
1onsiliul >a"ional al /udiovizualului a acordat 235 licen"e !P pentru di*uzare prin emi"toare
terestre0 2.523 licen"e pentru transmiterea programelor prin ca$lu i 1% licen"e pentru
transmiterea prin satelit. 5intre acestea0 o parte au *ost anulate pe parcurs din cauza ne*olosirii
licen"ei0 iar un numr considera$il de societ"i nu au rezistat concuren"ei. <a #nceputul anului
2004 se a*lau #n *unc"iuonau '' canale !P0 peste 600 societ"i de ca$lu Ci #n acest domeniu
are loc un amplu proces de concentrareD i ' posturi care transmit programele i prin satelit sau
numai prin satelit. .3ista 3 &ude"e C1lrai0 +iurgiu0 Il*ovD care nu au nici o licen" de emisie
pentru posturi locale.
1analele private de telviziune care s8au impus pn #n prezent pe plan na"ional sunt= 7ro
!v0 /ntena 10 7rima !v0 /cas0 ;ealitatea !v0 >a"ional !v i 61!v. #n a*ara grani"elor "rii se
recep"ioneaz 7ro !v Interna"ional0 ale crui emisiuni sunt destinate0 #n special0 romnilor din
5iaspora. 5e curnd0 trustul Intact0 care de"ine /ntena 1 a desc)is0 de asemena0 un canal
pentru romnii din strintate. ,iza este *r #ndoial votul romnilor care muncesc #n a*ara
grani"elor. 7rezentm #n continuare cteva *ie dedicate unor televiziuni comerciale de succes
#n ;omnia.
Antena 1 este prima televiziune comercial din ;omnia *ondat #n 1''3 ca parte
component a Boldingului +;IP1(. 2lterior0 s8a *ormat grupul multimedia Intact pe
sc)eletul unei *unda"ii.
:n cei 13 ani de e3isten"0 /ntena 1 a evoluat de la o sta"ie de *ilme i tiri care emitea #n
1''3 numai pentru zona 6ucurestiului0 la o re"ea de televiziune na"ional cu 22 studiouri
locale proprii i 6 sta"ii !P a*iliate care acoper peste -0H din popula"ia ;omniei i '0H din
popula"ia ur$an.
/ntena 1 este canalul de televiziune care a #nregistrat #n ultimii ani o cretere constant i
su$stan"ial de audien"O cota sa de pia" s8a ma&orat de la 1-.4H in 1''% la 24.2H #n 2001. :n
condi"iile unei concuren"e e3trem de puternice0 /ntena 1 s8a men"inut i #n 200482005 #n
vr*ul ierar)iei sta"iilor !P din ;omnia0 sta$ilizndu8se la un nivel de 20H cot de pia".
.c)ipa de pro*esioniti care lucreaz la /ntena 1 numr astzi apro3imativ '00 de
anga&a"i permanen"i i peste 400 de cola$oratori specializa"i #n toate componentele activit"ii
de televiziune.
:n ultimii ani0 /ntena 1 a investit masiv #n ec)ipamente per*ormante de produc"ie !P i de
emisie0 #n amena&area de noi studiouri de produc"ie i #n lansarea i sus"inerea de studiouri
locale. 5e asemenea0 ac)izi"iile de programe de pe pia"a interna"ional au $ene*iciat de un
$uget su$stan"ial. !oate aceste e*orturi au avut ca rezultat creterea calit"ii programelor
di*uzate de /ntena 10 att a celor produse local0 a cror pondere #n grila de programe s8a
ma&orat semni*icativ0 ct i a produc"iilor ac)izi"ionate0 #n special *ilme i seriale dar i
programe muzicale de "inut0 documentare0 evenimente artistice i sportive.
7rincipalii *urnizori de programe de pe pia"a international pentru /ntena 1 sunt
1(<2,6I/ !;IS!/;0 ,.!;( +(<5AT> ,/T.;0 20!B 1.>!2;T F(N0
7/;/,(2>!0 2>IP.;S/<0 6.!/FI<,8<.( II;1B0 1<!82F/0 7;(!.<.8
!.<.PIS/0 +/2,(>!0 1/>/<`0 1/;<!(>0 +;/>/5/0 ;/I0 .>5.,(<0 16S. 5e
la aceste case de produc"ie0 /ntena 1 di*uzeaz *ilme de mare success de $o38o**ice0 seriale si
telenovele care ruleaz simultan pe principalele canale de televiziune din toat lumea.
/ntena 1 di*uzeaz unul dintre cele mai audiate i mai apreciate programe de tiriO
principalul program in*ormativ al /ntenei 10 (6S.;P/!(;0 a *ost premiat de apte ori de
/socia"ia 7ro*esionitilor de !eleviziune din ;omnia pentru o$iectivitate0 completitudine i
pentru reporta&ele speciale din zonele de con*lict armat CIraM etc.D. 5ac ar tre$ui s
condensm #ntr8o *raz di*eren"a dintre &urnalele de tiri ale 7;( !v i cele ale /ntenei 10 ar
2'
tre$ui s o$servm *aptul c &urnalele /ntenei 1 sunt mai aproape de oameni0 pe cnd cele ale
7ro!P sunt mai spectaculoase0 dar se #ntmpl acolo0 undeva0 departe de omul o$inuit.
:nvesti"iile #n ec)ipamente per*ormante i #n resurse umane au permis creterea de la an la an
a pro*esionalismului i promptitudinii ec)ipei de tiri a /ntenei 1.
5ivertismentul este0 de asemenea o component important a grilei de programe a /ntenei
1. .misiuni precum /1/5.,I/ P.5.!.<(;0 5I> 5;/+(S!.0 +(>+ SB(A0
5IP.;!IS SB(A0 .1BI7/ F/>!/S!I1a0 6/!., 7/<,/0 1/1./<,/2/0
1/>/<2< 5. S!I;I0 ,/;./ 7;(P(1/;.0 1I/( 5/;AI> realizate #n modernul
1entru de 7roductie al /ntenei 1 de la ;ome3po au ocupat primele locuri #n topurile de
audien"0 #ntrunind aprecierile unui larg segment de pu$lic telespectator. 5e alt*el0 programele
produc"ie proprie acoper #n prezent peste 45H din timpul de emisie al sta"iei.
:n prezent *unc"ioneaz studiouri /ntena 1 i emi"toare locale #n 1% localit"i din
;omnia= Si$iu0 7iteti0 7loieti0 Sinaia0 Slo$ozia0 !rgu8,ure0 !rgu8Wiu0 !rgovite0 Paslui0
Suceava0 1lu& >apoca0 (radea0 /l$a Iulia0 5eva0 ;#mnicu8Plcea0 6rila0 6raov0 1onstan"a.
ca 7ro !P este o continuare a 1analului de sport i tiri. 5in punct de
vedere calitativ e3ista #ns o mare di*eren" #n avanta&ul noului 7ro !P. Pro TV a *ost lansat la
1 decem$rie 1''5 de aceeai ec)ip managerial care #n anul 1''3 a pus #n *unc"iune 1analul
31 6ucureti0 pro*ilat pe transmisii de sport i tiri. 5in punct de vedere al $azei materiale
ini"iale i al ec)ipei manageriale se poate considera
7ro !P a consacrat #n ;omnia0 #nc de la lansare0 ideea de e3celen" #n televiziune0
individualizndu8se prin diversitatea i calitatea programelor. Stilul su dinamic i #n continu
adaptare la ateptrile pu$licului0 vizeaz #n special persoanele cu vrsta cuprins #ntre 1% i
4' de ani. 7ro !P a devenit o stare de spirit i un stil de via" pentru *oarte mul"i romni.
/curate"ea programelor de tiri0 ec)ili$rul dintre produc"iile proprii i ac)izi"iile e3terne0
ponderea mare a transmisiilor sportive0 interne i interna"ionale0 parteneriatul cu cele mai mari
companii de *ilme din lume0 i8au asigurat #n anul 2000 cota de audien" cea mai ridicat #n
mediul ur$an.
Succesul canalului de televiziune 7ro !P se datoreaz nu numai calitatii programelor
i stilului modern de prezentare a acestora0 ci i $azei te)nice care s8a e3tins an de an. :n
prezent0 *unc"ioneaz dou studiouri 7ro !P i emi"toare locale #n 26 de orae din ;omnia
i ;epu$lica ,oldova= Iai0 1)isinau0 6aia ,are0 5eva0 (radea0 7loieti0 Slatina0 7oiana
6raov0 6uzu0 !rgovite0 Sinaia0 !rgu8,ure0 1lu&0 6ucureti0 6raov0 ,iercurea 1iuc0
7iteti0 Si$iu0 +ala"i0 /rad0 /iud0 /l$a8Iulia0 Satu ,are0 !urda0 (rtie i Bunedoara. 7ro !P
transmite codat programele sale i pe satelitul .utelsat Bot 6ird 3[130 . care acoper #ntreaga
.urop0 >ordul /*ricii i (rientul /propiat. 5e la satelit0 programele sunt preluate de 416
societ"i de ca$lu0 ast*el c0 #mpreun cu emi"toarele terestre0 se asigur #n prezent recep"ia
lor de -106H din popula"ia "rii.
7rima TD provine din +analul 3%0 care i8a #nceput activitatea #n anul 1''4 #n
6ucureti0 avnd o dotare redus i o gril de program $azat #n special pe emisiuni
ac)izi"ionate. :n prezent0 programele acestui canal de televiziune sunt diversi*icate0 iar unele
din emisiuni cum ar *i K1ronica 1rcotailor@ sunt destul de vizionate. Segmentul de vrst
vizat de 7rima !P este cuprins #ntre 15 i 44 ani. :n prezent0 7rima !v *ace prte din re"eaua
S6S0 cu capital american i cu sta"ii #n Slovenia0 6udapesta0 Suedia0 (landa.
30
7rima !P de"ine cteva licen"e de emisie prin emi"toare terestre C6ucureti0 1mpina
etc.D0 dar principala cale de transmisie este prin satelitul Intelsat -050 situat la 34S20SS .st. /ria
de acoperire cuprinde #ntreaga .urop0 >ordul /*ricii i (rientul /propiat. :n ;omnia0
programele sale sunt distri$uite de aproape toate societ"ile de ca$lu0 asigurndu8se o
acoperire de circa 56H din popula"ie i %-H din popula"ia oraelor cu peste 200.000 locuitori.
7rin noile programe pe care le di*uzeaz0 7rima !v #ncearc s o*ere o alternativ la
programele altor televiziuni0 aceasta *iind una dintre cile de preluare a unei par"i din
telespectatorii acestora.
5cas este primul canal de televiziune din ;omnia care se adreseaz cu precdere *emeilor.
5in acest punct de vedere0 este un canal specializat0 spre deose$ire de 7;( !v i /ntena 1
care sunt canale generaliste. 5e la lansarea sa0 la #nceputul anului 1''%0 a avut o evolu"ie
continuu ascendent0 care #i asigur un loc privilegiat #n audiovizualul romnesc. Succesul su
este datorat i *aptului ca grila s de programe a *ost sta$ilit printr8un e3periment de ^*ocus
grup^0 unic #n ;omnia. (nducerea canalului a respectat dolean"ele telespectatorilor0 o*erindu8
le cele mai $une seriale0 *ilme0 concerte0 emisiuni de divertisment0 emisiuni muzicale0
emisiuni sportive i mai ales telenovele.
.misia canalului de televiziune ^/cas^ este codat i se *ace prin satelitul .utelsat Bot
6ird 3[130 .0 *iind recep"ionat0 prin re"elele de ca$lu0 #n aproape 203 milioane locuin"e ur$ane
C'6HD0 iar #n mediul rural de 143.000 din cei 410.000 a$ona"i la ca$lu C35HD. ^/cas^ este
singurul canal de televiziune din ;omnia care o*er telespectatorilor si cei mai *ideli
cadouri #n case i apartamente0 complet mo$ilate i utilate0 *apt ce8i sporete atractivitatea.
Interactivitatea permanent dintre realizatori i telespectatori0 *aciliteaz legtura cu oamenii
i pune #n eviden" stilul occidental de comportament al postului0 caracteristic i celorlalte
televiziuni din concernul ,edia 7ro.
7ro TD .nternaional a #nceput s emit #n data de 2' aprilie 2000 prin satelitul .utelsat
Bot 6ird 31S30SS .0 putnd *i recep"ionat direct #n .uropa0 >ordul /*ricii i (rientul /propiat.
7ostul se adreseaz #n special romnilor din 5iaspora0 crora le o*er posi$ilitatea de a urmri
actualitatea romneasca la zi0 #n direct0 att prin intermediul programelor de tiri0 ct i prin
intermediul unor tal48s)o98uri i emisiuni de divertisment.
/udien"a poten"ial a acestui canal de televiziune este estimat la circa 5 milioane de
telespectatori vor$itori de lim$a romn din .uropa i Israel0 precum i din S2/0 1anada i
/merica <atin Cprin retransmitereD. :n Israel0 unde apro3imativ 10H din popula"ie Ccirca
600.000 de persoaneD este *ormat din comunitatea evreilor originari din ;omnnia0 7ro !P
Interna"ional este distri$uit prin re"elele de ca$lu !evel i ,atav i plat*orma digital a Tes0
avnd 125.000 a$ona"i. <a acetia se adaug telespectatorii care recep"ioneaz programele cu
antene proprii sau din re"eaua de ca$lu din 6ulgaria. .misiunile se transmit non8stop0 circa un
s*ert din ele *iind transmisii directe. ( pondere relativ important #n grila de programe0 o au
emisiunile privind $uctria tradi"ional romneasc0 precum i emisiunile de sport0 nelipsind
transmisiile directe ale meciurilor de *ot$al din divizia /.
Si;ealitatea !P este prima televiziune de tiri din ;omnia cu un *ormat
adaptat in*orma"iei i comentariului. / *ost #n*iin"at #n noiem$rie 2001 i are un studio
teritorial la 1onstanta. /nul acesta se vor desc)ide studiouri teritoriale #n 6rasov0 !imioara0
+ala"i0 1lu&8>apoca0 Paslui0 5eva0 7iatra >eam"0 Si$iu i 1raiova. ;ealitatea !v are ca pu$lic
"int popula"ia activ0 cu educa"ie peste medie0 dinamic0 i conteaz pe o audien" *ormat #n
special din persoane care de"in pozi"ii importante #n structurile economice i politice.
;ealitatea !v capteaz i *idelizeaz segmentul ^e3ecutives^0 prin calitatea tirilor i prin
31
"inuta tal48s)o98urilor. binta programelor ;ealitatea !v0 o reprezint persoanele cu vrste mai
mari de 25 de ani0 interesate de a avea acces rapid la in*orma"ie0 persoane mature0 care #i
construiesc i consolideaz o cariera de succes.
:n prezent0 televiziunile din ;omnia ne o*er o palet *oarte divers de emisiuni0 care pot
*i grupate ast*el=
1D transmisiile directe. /cestea pot *i mani*estri politice0 sportive sau culturale Cconcerte0
piese de teatruD. /l doilea rz$oi din +ol* a #nregistrat o premier i din acest punct de vedere0
a *ost transmis #n direct #nintarea prin deert a trupelor de $lindate.
2D *ilme artistice. /ici sunt incluse toate genurile= serialele0 *ilmele tiin"i*ico8*antastice0
telenovelele0 *ilmele poli"iste0 *ilmele culturale0 etc.
3D *ilmele documentare de toate genurile.
4D emisiunile de platou= emisiuni de divertisment0 &ocuri i concursuri0 tal48s)o9uri cu unul
sau mai mul"i participan"i0 emisiuni pentru copii.
5D emisiunile de tiri0 de actualit"i.
6D desene animate.
!oate aceste emisiuni utilizeaz ca element esen"ial camerele de luat vederi0 iluminatul
arti*icial0 editarea i prelucrarea comple3 a imaginii. 2tilizarea imaginii impune trei categorii
de no"iuni importante=
1D conven"ii. /cestea tre$uie respectate0 productorii i regizorii tre$uie s i le #nsueasc.
2D reguli. /cestea tre$uie privite ca un liant i pot *i #nclcate numai #n cazuri e3cep"ionale0
pentru a realiza unele e*ecte surpriz0 comice sau $izare.
3D Sugestii i s*aturi. /cestea sunt reguli empirice0 dar utile.
;egulile0 sugestiile i s*aturile guverneaz - activit"i speci*ice de televiziune= monta&ul0
manevrarea o$iectivului0 compozi"ia cadrului0 manevrarea camerei0 generalitai0 ec)ipament i
#nregistrarea.
Sisteme de codare a semnalului de imagine
1amera de televiziune livreaz de regul semnalele componente ; + 6= ;8rosu0 +8verde0
68al$astru. 7rimul sistem color de televiziune care a aprut este >!S1. 1aracteristica sa
te)nic de $az este modula"ia de amplitudine #n cuadratur. .3ist un standard american0 dar
i unul european pentru >!S1. Istoria televiziunii #n culori #ncepe cu patentul lui F. +raE din
1'2'0 pu$licat #n 1'30. Sistemul >!S1 a *ormat $aza sistemelor de televiziune #n culori
aprute ulterior. .l a *ost adoptat ulterior i in Waponia0 unde emisiunile #n culori au #nceput #n
anul 1'60. 1ercetarile au evoluat i A. 6ruc) de la *irma !ele*un4en din +ermania a ela$orat
sistemul #n culori 7/< C 7)ase /lternation <ineD0 care este o variant #m$unat"it a sistemului
>!S1. 1ercetarile lui Benri de France din Fran"a au dezvoltat un sistem nou0 structurat di*erit
de sistemul >!S10 cunoscut su$ denumirea de S.1/, CSEsteme electroniMue couleur avec
memoireD. :n acest *el0 .uropa s8a #mpr"it #n dou din punct de vedere al sistemelor de
televiziune #n culori adoptate= #n 1'6- au #nceput emisiunile #n culori0 #n +ermania si /nglia0
#n sistem 7/<0 iar Fran"a i 2;SS au adoptat sistemul S.1/,. !recnd la televiziunea #n
culori0 /nglia i Fran"a au trecut la norma de televiziune de 625 de linii i 25 de cadre pe
secund C50 de cmpuri pe secundD. / doua norm de televiziune este de 525 de linii i 30 de
cadre pe secund. 7e lng cele doua norme de televiziune mai e3ist trei sisteme di*erite de
televiziune #n culori= >!S10 7/<0 S.1/,. /ceast diversitate a #ngrdit #n timp sc)im$urile
interna"ionale. :n prezent0 situa"ia s8a im$un"it considera$il datorit televiziunii digitale. :n
anul 1'%2 s8a adoptat pe plan mondial un standard unic de televiziune digital. :n *elul acesta0
ec)ipamentele *a$ricate de diveri productori pot *i
32
interconectate *r pro$leme. !eleviziunea digital a permis utilizarea sistemelor universale de
calcul pentru prelucrarea imaginilor i pentru o$"inerea unei calit"i e3celente din punct de
vedere te)nic a programelor de televiziune. .ditarea nonlinear a #nlocuit #n mare parte
editarea linear cu ec)ipamente aalogice.
Transmiterea semnalului de televiziune
;epartizarea #n *recven" a canalelor de transmisie a semnalelor de televiziune depinde de
standardul de televiziune adoptat de *iecare tar. 1analele sunt reunite #n cinci $enzi0 iar
acestea sunt situate #n dou domenii de *recven"= domeniul de *oarte inalta *recventa CFIFD si
domeniul de ultra8inalta *recventa C2IFD= FIF 6anda I 4%05866 ,)z Ccanalele 10 2D0 6anda II
-68100,Bz Ccanalele 385D0 6anda III 1-48230 ,)z Ccanalele 6812D0 2IF 6anda IP 4-08600
,)z Ccanalele 2183-D0 6anda P 6068-'0 ,)z Ccanalele 3%86'D. 1analele 1 i 2 ocup spa"iul
de *recven" #ntre 4%0585605 ,)z i0 respectiv0 5%866 ,)z.
Transportul semnalului de televiziune
!ransmisia semnalului de televiziune se poate *ace prin radiorelee0 prin satelit sau prin
ca$lu. :n unele cazuri0 transportul semnalului de televiziune se *ace prin dou modalit"i0 #n
*unc"ie de caracteristicile zonei care tre$uie acoperite.Pom e3plica0 pe scurt0 speci*icul
*iecrei metode de transport a semnalului de televiziune.
Transmisia prin radiorelee
!ransmisia prin radiorelee se *olosete la transportul semnalului de televiziune de la o sta"ie
de televiziune mo$il la centrul de televiziune0 pe distan"a de cteva zeci de 4ilometri sau de
la centrul de televiziune la emi"toarele !P rspndite pe un teritoriu de sute i mii de
4ilometri. 7rin amplasarea radioreleelor la distan"a vizi$ilit"ii directe se o$"ine un lan" de
radiorelee C*ig. 1 i 2D. ;eleele terestre sunt ast*el amplasate ast*el #nct s permit releeelor
Ks se vad@ unul pe cellalt.
33
(ig) 4 Componena sistemului de radiorelee
(ig) 2 >mplasarea translatorului n zonele de recepie o!turate
Transmisia prin satelit
,icarea satelitului #n &urul 7amntului se supune legilor lui Iepler. 2n satelit poate *i
plasat pe o or$it circular ecuatorial sau pe o or$it eliptic ecuatorial. 2n satelit care
evolueaz #n &urul 7mntului pe o or$it circular ecuatorial poate *i ast*el plasat #nct s
ai$ aceeai direc"ie de rota"ie i aceeai perioad de revolu"ie cu ale 7mntului. :n acest caz
satelitul se va roti sincron cu 7mntul. 2n asemenea satelit se numete geosta"ionar. 7lasnd
pe o or$it la 120 de grade trei sateli"i geosta"ionari0 se poate acoperi toat supra*a"a
7mntului0 cu e3cep"ia regiunilor polare. 7entru un o$servator de pe 7mnt0 satelitul va
aprea permanent *i3at #n acelai punct sau alt*el spus0 satelitul va Kvedea@ permanent aceeai
zon a 7mntului C*ig. 3 i 4D. (r$ita ecuatorial este o or$it #nalt0 apro3. 3'.000 de 4m
altitudine.
t Orbit ecuatoriala
(ig) / 0voluia circular ecuatorilal (ig) ; Transmisia prin satelit
a unui satelit geostaionar
34
Transmisia semnalului tv prin ca!lu
:n sistemul de transmisie prin ca$lu se poate *olosi=
aD ca$lu coa3ial de impedanta -5 o)mi0
$D *i$r optic.
1a$lul coa3ial tinde sa *ie #nlocuit de *i$ra optic. 1a$lul optic este un *ir de sticla *oarte
su$tire Czeci de micrometriD0 de compozitie special0 prin interiorul cruia se propag o und
luminoas modulat. ;adia"ia produs la emisie este detectat la recep"ie cu a&utorul unor
semiconductoare de dimensiuni compara$ile cu cele ale *i$rei de sticl. Fi$rele de sticl
lucreaz ca g)iduri de unde optice i pot *i #nmnunc)eate pentru a *orma un ca$lu optic0
su$"ire i *le3i$il. ( *i$r de sticl const dintr8un miez #ncon&urat de un #nveli cu indice de
re*rac"ie mai mare dect al miezului. Simpli*icand0 se poate spune ca conduc"ia luminii prin
miez este rezultatul re*le3iei totale interne la supra*a"a de separa"ie dintre miez si #nveli.
7entru descrierea corect se utilizeaz teoria propagrii undelor electromagnetice0 care arat
c sunt posi$ile numai anumite moduri de propagare. In *i$rele de diametru mare0 numarul de
moduri este relativ ridicat C*i$re multimodD. :n *i$rele cu diametru mic Ccompati$ile cu
lungimea de und a radia"ieiD0 se o$"ine un singur mod C*i$re unimodD. 6anda de *recven" a
*i$relor multimod este de apro3imativ 600 ,)z0 iar a *i$relor unimod este de 2500 ,)z.
1alitatea *i$rei optice este determinat i de atenuarea radia"iei #n *i$r. Se asigur de&a
atenuri de 385 d6[4m cu *i$rele multimod si de 005800% d6[4m #n *i$rele unimod. 7e liniile
lungi de transmisie se *olosesc ampli*icatoare pentru compensarea pierderilor de radia"ie. :ntr8
un sistem de transmisie prin *i$re optice0 semnalul !P este trans*ormat intr8un semnal
luminos care se transmite prin *i$ra optic0 iar la captul *i$rei optice semnalul luminos este
trans*ormat #n semnal !P. 5eci0 la un capt avem sursa de radia"ie optic0 iar la celalalt
*otodetectorul. 1a sursa de radia"ie optic se *olosesc= dioda cu laser cu arseniura de galiu C+a
/sD0 dioda electroluminescent i dioda superluminescent0 care emit radia"ii #n domeniul
in*rarosu apropiat C00%800' cmD. 7entru detec"ia *asciculului de radia"ie emis0 se utilizeaz de
o$icei *otocelule0 *ototranzistoare0 *otodiode. Fi$rele optice au o serie de avanta&e=
Lsunt rezistente la temperaturi mari C1000 de grade 1DO
Lsunt imune la pertur$a"iile de natur electromagneticO
Lnu apar dia*otii Cinduc"ia semnalelor de pe o *i$r optic pe alt *i$r optic0 ale aceluiai
ca$luDO
Lraport semnal[zgomot ridicatO
Llrgime de $and considera$il.
:n transmisia prin ca$lu optic0 intensitatea purttoarei optice de *recven" ung)iular
omega i amplitudine / este modulat cu semnalul modulator ,CtD0 care la randul lui poate *i
modulat #n amplitudine0 #n *recven" sau #n *aza8modula"ia analogic. :n modula"ia analogic
#n impulsuri0 semnalul analogic ac"ioneaz asupra parametrilor unui ir de impulsuri0
o$"inndu8se=
Lmodula"ia de impulsuri #n amplitudine C,I/DO
Lmodula"ia de impulsuri #n *recven" C,IFDO
Lmodulatia de impulsuri #n durat C,I5D.
:n modula"ia digital se *olosete0 de o$icei0 modula"ia impulsurilor #n cod C,I1D i modula"ia
di*eren"iat a impulsurilor #n cod C,5I1D.
35
Spectrul audio
:n con*ormitate cu acordurile interna"ionale0 spectrul radio este #mpr"it #n % $enzi de
*recven". Fiecare $and este alocat pentru servicii speci*ice. 7rin decizia 2niunii
interna"ionale de telecomunica"ii din care *ac parte peste 130 de "ri0 *iecare "ar a primit o
por"iune din spectru. /locarea #n interiorul *iecrei "ri a acestor *recven"e este *acut de
organiza"iile de specialitate. :n ;omnia0 aceasta este /gen"ia na"ional pentru telecomunica"ii
#n cola$orare0 atunci cnd este cazul0 cu 1>/ C1onsiliul national al audiovizualuluiD.
Clasi8icarea spectrului audio
1D P<F CverE lo9 *reMuancED 8 30 IBz i mai pu"in. :n aceast $and nu se poate transmite
vocea. 6anda este utilizat #n radionavigatia maritim.
2D <F Clo9 *reMuencED 8 30 IBz 8 300 IBz. /ceast $and este *olosit #n aeronautic0
radiolocatie0 radionaviga"ie.
3D ,F Cmedium *reMuencED 8 300 IBz 8 3000 IBz. .ste *olosit #n radio /,0 siguran"
pu$lic0 etc.
4D BF C)ig) *reMuencED 3,Bz 8 30 ,Bz. .ste o $and utilizat pentru comunicarea la
distan" lung0 radio amatori0 *a30 etc.
5D PBF CverE )ig) *reMuencED 8 30 ,Bz 8 300 ,Bz. .ste *olosit #n televiziune0 radio
ultrascurte0 comunica"ii prin satelit0 radio astronomie0 aeronautic0 telemetrie spa"ial.
6D 2BF Cultra )ig) *reMuencED8 300 ,Bz83000 ,Bz. .ste o $and pentru televiziune0 satelit0
cercetare spa"ial0 avia"ie0 amatori.
-D SBF Csuper )ig) *reMuencED8 3+Bz830 +Bz. .ste *olosit pentru sateli"i0 radare0 cercetare
spa"ial0 radio navigatie0 c)iar i amatori.
%D .BF Ce3treme )ig) *reMuencED8 30+Bz8300 +Bz. .ste utilizat #n cercetarea spa"ial0
pentru radio astronomie0 radionaviga"ie.
?enzi de 8recven utilizate de televiziune
?anda @&(
!eleviziunea ocup un canal mult mai larg dect ocup un canal de radio. Fiecare canal de
televiziune ocup 6 ,Bz0 din care transmiterea imaginii este de apro3imativ 4 ,)z si o
portiune din ceea ce a mai rmas revine sunetului.
?anda A&(
!eleviziunile care opereaz #n aceast $and lucreaz cu *recven"e mult mai mari0 ceea ce
permite canalelor de televiziune sa *ie mult mai apropiate. In sc)im$0 emisia in $anda 2BF
necesit puteri mai mari. 5istan"a la care ?$ate@ un post !P care emite #n 2BF este mai mic
dect distan"a la care ?$ate@ un post !P cu aceeai putere0 dar care emite #n PBF.
Televiziunea de nalt de8iniie B&6T@C
!eleviziunea de #nalt de*ini"ie C)ig) de*inition televisionD a *ost dezvoltat pentru prima
dat #n Waponia de compania SonE i devenit opera"ional la s*ritul anilor S%0. Sistemul
utilizeaz 1125 de linii. /ceasta te)nologie0 datorit #naltei de*ini"ii0 tinde s #nlocuiasc
*ilmul de 35 mm. :n prezent0 produc"ia de clipuri pu$licitare este mai ie*tin cu acest sistem
care permite monta&ul non8liniar. B5!P a #nceput prin a *i o variant de suport a imaginii
36
pentru industria cinematogra*ic i a devenit o alternativ la televiziunea tradi"ional. <a
nivelul anului 20060
!eleviziunea de #nalt de*ini"ie poate *i considerat o revolu"ie #n televiziune0
asemntoare cu apari"ia televiziunii #n culori. /ceast revolu"ie nu ar *i *ost posi$il *r
dezvoltarea te)nologiei digitale. 1ea mai important pro$lem cu care se con*runt B5!P
este aceeai pro$lem cu care s8a con*runtat televiziunea pu$lic #n anul apari"iei sale0 1'54.
:n lume e3ist apro3imativ 600 de milioane de televizoare0 iar %5H dintre acestea sunt
televizoare color. !e)nicienii tre$uie s rezolve acum o pro$lem de compati$ilitate #ntre
B5!P i vec)ile televizoare0 pn cnd noile televizoare le vor #nlocui pe cele vec)i sau se va
realiza emisia simultan #n am$ele standarde. 2n e3emplu interesant de emisie simultan ni8l
o*er pro*esorul Ielin W. Iu)n. 661 a #nceput s emit #n al$[negru0 #n regim comercial0 #n
anul 1'3-0 cu un standard de 405 linii. :n anul 1'6-0 a *ost introdus #n ,area 6ritanie
standardul 7/<0 cu 625 de linii. Sistemele al$[negru i color au *ost emise #mpreun pn #n
anul 1'%60 cnd *oarte pu"ine televizoare al$[negru cu 405 linii mai ereau #n *unc"iune. /tunci
7arlamentul a decis sistarea emisiei #n variant al$[negru cu 405 linii. !eleviziunea de #nalt
de*ini"ie0 cunoscut su$ acronimul B5!P0 o*er o calitate sporit a imaginii i a sunetului i
permite interconectarea cu computerul0 ast*el #nct0 #ntr8un viitor nu *oarte #ndeprtat0 pe $aza
unui a$onament0 vom putea alege s urmrim acas0 la computer0 un *ilm0 o emisiune de
televiziune0 *r s ateptm ora de emisie a programului pe care vrem s8l urmrim.
7rezentm cteva din avanta&ele televiziunii #n culori=
8#nalt de*ini"ie a imaginii Co claritate e3cep"ional0 similar cu cea a *ilmului colorD.
8dimensiuni mari a ecranului. 8calitate mult mai $un a culorilor. 8permite utilizarea
mai multor canale digitale de sunet.
Imaginea *urnizat de televiziunea #n culori are o rezolu"ie de 6 ori mai mare dect
televiziunea actual i va avea 60 de *otograme C*ramesD pe secund. ,icare pe ecran va *i
vzut lin0 iar imaginea va *i destul de clar ca s permit aezerea aproape de ecranele care
vor *i *oarte mari #n compara"ie cu ecranele tu$ului cinescop. 5imensiunile ecranului
televizorului care va utilizat de televiziunea de #nalt de*in"ie se a*l #ntr8un raport de 16='
Corizontal[verticalD0 ceea ce va accentua apropierea de ecranul de cinematogra* i va #ntri
telespectatorului senza"ia de real.
1um va *i distri$uit semnalul televiziunii de #nalt de*ini"ieQ !erestru0 prin relee0 prin
satelit sau prin ca$luQ :n prezent0 aceast pro$lem a divizat sus"intorii B5!P #n dou
categorii= cei care doresc transmiterea semnalului terestru0 prin relee i cei care pre*er
celelalte dou solu"ii0 satelit i ca$lu. /m$ele solu"ii sunt posi$ile din punct de vedere te)nic
i #n condi"ii economice similare. 5ecizia nu va *i neaprat te)nic0 ci politic i economic
pentru c diverse companii din Waponia i S2/ sunt avansate0 *iecare pentru solu"ii di*erite. :n
prezent0 20060 singura "ar care emite #n B5!P #n regim comercial este Waponia0 unde au *ost
vndute apro3imativ 3.000 de televizoare B5!P i 100.000 de convertoare.
Sisteme de nregistrare video
Imaginea video poate *i #nregistrat #n dou *eluri= analogic i digital. 5ezvoltarea
te)nologiilor digitale a dus la dispari"ia treptat a #nregistrrilor analogice0 inclusiv a
*ormatului pro*esional analogic $eta care a dominat pia"a ec)ipamentelor pro*esionale de
televiziune0 de la s*ritul anilor S%0 pn #n primii ani ai noului mileniu.
(ormate de nregistrare analogic a semnalului video
1D PBS CPideo Bome SEstemDO
3-
2D S8PBSO
3D 6etaO sistem pro*esional cu cea mai mare longevitate pn acum.
4D % mmO
5D Bi8% mmO
6D 28,aticO sistem disprut #n "rile occidentale la s*ritul anilor S%00 dar care era #nc *olosit
#n unele televiziuni din /merica de Sud #n primii ani dup 1''0 Ce3= 7eruD.
-D S7828,aticO
%D P82000.
1ele opt sisteme de mai sus sunt vala$ile pentru normele de televiziune= 7/< 625 de linii[25
i >!S1 525 linii[30. <a sistemul P82000 #nregistrarea ocup 1[2 din l"imea $enzii0 ast*el
#nct pentru utilizarea am$elor &umt"i0 caseta tre$uie #ntoars. Formatele PBS i S8PBS au
*ost introduse pe pia" de compania &aponez WP1 #n 1'-6.
:n prezent semnalul video este #nregistrat digital #n *ormat 5P1/, i mai rar #n B5!P
Ctelevizine de #nalt de*ini"ieD. Sistemul B5!P este utilizat deocamdat pentru reclamele
comerciale. >u este renta$il utilizare ec)ipamentelor B5!P pentru produc"iile curente de
televiziune pentru c #n ;omnia nu e3ist emisie #n B5!P i toat produc"ia realizat ast*el
ar tre$ui convertit pentru emisie #n sistem analogic0 deci am reveni la aceeai parametri
calitativi ai imaginii. 5P1/, este #n prezent cel mai rspndit sistem pro*esional de
#nregistrare #n ;omnia. .c)ipamentele $eta mai sunt utilizate pn cnd vor *i epuizate
te)nic. :ns editarea #nregistrrilor se *ace nonlinear0 ceea ce presupune un timp suplimentar
de #ncrcare a materialului #nregistrat #n calculator. 1)iar dac #nregistrrile se *ac #n sistem
B5!P C1125 de liniiD0 telespectatorii nu $ene*iciaz de calitatea acestui sistem0 #ntruct
di*uzarea0 #n ;omnia0 se *ace #nc analogic.
/pari"ia te)nologiei digitale a dus la dispari"ia treptat a sistemelor video analogice de
#nregistrare i la domina"ia sistemelor digitale. :n prezent0 cel mai rspndit sistem digital de
#nregistrare este sistemul 5P1/, sau mini5P1/, C*ormatul casetei este compati$il att cu
camerele video comerciale0 ct i cele pro*esionaleD. :ns te)nologia este de&a *oarte avansat
pentru a putea #nlocui casetele cu )ard8uri mo$ile. /vanta&ul *udamental al unui )ard mo$il
este acela c nu mai este nevoie de timpul intermediar de #ncrcare #n )ardul sistemului de
#nregistrare a materialului *ilmat0 care se *ace #n timp real. 5e e3emplu0 dac pentru un
documentar s8au *ilmat trei ore0 tre$uie ateptat tot att pentru #ncrcare #n sistemul de editare.
/pari"ia te)nologiei digitale a dus la dispari"ia treptat a sistemelor video analogice de
#nregistrare i la domina"ia sistemelor digitale. :n prezent0 cel mai rspndit sistem digital de
#nregistrare este sistemul 5P1/, sau mini5P1/, C*ormatul casetei este compati$il att cu
camerele video comerciale0 ct i cele pro*esionaleD. :ns te)nologia este de&a *oarte avansat
pentru a putea #nlocui casetele cu )ard8uri mo$ile. /vanta&ul *udamental al unui )ard mo$il
este acela c nu mai este nevoie de timpul intermediar de #ncrcare #n )ardul sistemului de
#nregistrare a materialului *ilmat0 care se *ace #n timp real. 5e e3emplu0 dac pentru un
documentar s8au *ilmat trei ore0 tre$uie ateptat tot att pentru #ncrcare #n sistemul de editare.
7rezentm #n continuare un ta$el comparativ cu per*orman"ele sistemelor de #nregistrare a
semnalului video=
3%
!a$el comparativ cu sistemele de #nregistrare video analogice
>vanta#e 6ezavanta#e Concluzii generale
Sistem analog de
nregistrare a
imaginilor
,ai ie*tin dect sistemul
digital
+enera"ie de ec)ipamente
epuizat0 nu se recomand
pentru editate #n computer
i pentru *ormat streaming
pentru internet.
.ste o te)nologie pe cale
de dispari"ie.
.c)ipamentele care mai
*unc"ioneaz #n diverse
televiziuni nu mai sunt
reparate0 ci aruncate
dup de*ectare.
Sistem analog @&S .ste cel mai rspndit
sistem de #nregistrare
video. 6anda este *oarte
ie*tin i poate *i rulat
timp #ndelungat. 1ele mai
multe camere video
*ormat PBS au disprut
din comer". Capro3.240 de
liniiD
>u este un sistem
convena$il pentru editare0
pentru c la *iecare copie
imaginea pierde masiv din
calitate Capro3. 15HD.
/ *ost un sistem *oarte
$un pentru *ilmri #n
*amilie0 mai ales dac nu
e3ista inten"ia de editare
sau de a *ace copii.
@&S 9 C B!and de
dimensiuni reduseC
CDcompact
1osturi mai ridicate ale
$enzii i durat mai mic
de #nregistrare0 dar
aceeai calitate a imaginii
ca a sistemului PBS
normal.
>econvena$il pentru
editare. 5egradare rapid a
$enzii video.
/ *ost un sistem *oarte
$un pentru *ilmri #n
*amilie0 mai ales dac nu
e3ista inten"ia de editare
sau de a *ace copii.
S 9 @&S Bsuper
@&SC
Sistemul a 8ost
8olosit la nceputul
anilor '90)
Standardul de calitate a
imginii #m$unt"it *a"
de PBS Capro3.420 de
liniiD
6anda a *ost ie*tin0 o
caset putnd avea pn
la 4 ore. 1amerele video
au *ost clasi*icate #n
categoria
semipro*esionale.
Stocurile de $enzi video u
*ost reduse0 ceea ce *cea
mai di*icil gsirea unei
casete S PBS.
2n sistem $un pentru
editare0 #ns numai cu
cteva copii *cute dup
caseta master.
S 9 @&S 9 C sistem S 9
@&S cu caset
compact)
1alitate similar cu cea a
sistemului normal.
1aset mai scump dect
sistemul normal i mai
pu"in accesi$il. 5urat
mai mic de #nregistrare
dect sistemul normal S
PBS
<a editare secomport
mai $ine dect sistemul
S PBS normal.
@ideo 5 sistem
rspndit dup 4990
/ utilizat caset
compact0 de
*ormat redus.
1ost relativ ridicat al
casetei.
;ar utilizat pentru
editare. .ditarea se *cea
transpunnd
#nregistrarea #n alt
*ormat care se putea
edita uor.
&i 51 m!untire a
versiunii @ideo 5
1alitate a imaginii mai
$un dect la sistemul
Pideo %. ;ezolu"ie mai
mare dect la sistemul
Pideo %. 1aset de *ormat
compact. Sunet digital.
1ost relativ ridicat al
$enzii. 5urata redus a
casetei. 1onvena$il
pentru editare0 permi"nd
doar cteva copii dup
caseta master.
.ditarea se *cea rar #n
sistemul Bi %. 5e cele
mai multe ori materialul
*ilmat se copia #n
sistemul $eta pentru a
putea *i editat.
3'
2evoluia te%nologic) >saltul televiziunii digitale)
7e 1 ianuarie 2012 in .uropa se va inc)ide emisia analogic de televiziune. ,omentul
care da semnalul unei sc)im$ari *oarte importante inseamna pentru "rile mem$re ale
comunitatii trecerea in totalitate la emisia digitala. /numite tari i8au pus de&a la punct
sistemul. 5e e3emplu0 (landa0 care a inc)eiat acest proces in 200%. :ntre$rile tuturor tin insa
de impactul pe care aceasta tranzitie la digital il va avea asupra pu$licului. Sc)im$area va
insemna posi$ilitatea oamenilor de a avea K acces gratuit0 cu o impla antena
omnidirectionala0 la 40850 de programe in retea nationala0 plus multe alte programe locale
noi.
( calitate incompara$il mai $una a imaginii0 acces la televiziunea de inalta de*initie CB5D
sau posi$ilitatea de receptie a programelor !v in automo$il0 inclusiv la viteze mari. In randul
$ine*acerilor mai sunt mentionate= receptia de in*ormatii suplimentare prin .7+ Celectronic
program guideD0 unde se pot accesa descrieri ale programelor0 inclusiv ale *ilmelor0
posi$ilitatea de a inregistra digital programele0 dar i necesitatea de a sc)im$a televizorul
analogic cu unul digital@
43
. !eleviziunea de #nalt de*ini"ie0 B5!P0 o*er o imagine i un sunet
de cea mai $un calitate. ;ezolu"ia sporit o*er o claritate departe de standardele actuale.
Filmele #si pstreaz l"imea original0 o*erind o e3perien" de vizionare apropiat de cea de la
cinematogra*0 iar evenimentele sportive ctig #n spectaculozitate. .
44
;evolu"ia te)nologic a nscut i la noi controverse #n rndul televiziunilor pentru c
tranzi"ia va *ace ca transmisia s nu mai *ie *acut ca pn acum0 *iecare televiziune cu
emi"torul ei pentru un canal tv. Por *i transmise simultan pn la % programe tv cu un singur
emi"tor pe acelasi canal Cnumit multiple3D. >edumerirea "inea de reglementarea modului #n
care mai multe televiziuni #i vor transmite programele pe acelai emi"tor cui #i va apar"ine
acest emi"torQ Solu"ia de compromis aleas pn la urm este de inspira"ie *rancez0 i ea
preia c)iar din e3perien"a acestei "ri #n tratarea solu"iilor mass8media0 #n sensul servirii
interesului pu$lic prin com$inarea cu cea mai permisiv a$ordare #n spiritul economiei de
pia".
/st*el0 pentru a evita riscul apari"iei unui monopol prin acordarea dreptului de a utiliza
multiple3ul tv unui singur operator de comunica"ii0 care apoi ar urma s decid ce programe
va transmite i la ce tari*e0 modelul *rancez0 las la latitudinea televiziunilor alegerea
operatorului care va *ace transmisia. .le pot alege un operator independent0 cu care vor
negocia tari*ele0 pot conveni ca una dintre ele s *ac emisia celor % programe0 sau pot #n*iin"a
cu acest scop o societate comerciala. :n plus0 avanta&ul solu"iei pentru care s8a optat #n
ordonan"a este acela de a pstra selec"ia pentru acordarea licen"elor digitale la nivelul
programelor i nu la nivelul te)nic al emisiei0 #n sensul c licen"a de multiple3 se acord prin
concurs televiziunilor care produc programele i nu operatorului care *ace emisia.
:n 20060 la con*erin"a 2niunii Interna"ionale de !elecomunicatii de la +eneva0 ;omniei i8
au *ost acordate % re"ele na"ionale digitale0 dintre care cel pu"in apte vor *i *olosite pentru
televiziune. 5ac se va adopta cea mai noua te)nologie de emisie digital tv0 respectiv
5P6!20 atunci #n cele - re"ele se vor putea transmite 56 de programe tv romneti la nivel
na"ional0 crora li se vor adauga multe alte programe la nivel local.
45
5ac se va e3tinde televiziunea B50 de&a o mare tentatie0 dar care consuma mai multa
$anda radio in cadrul unui canal tv0 atunci una sau doua dintre cele - multiple3uri vor *i
*olosite pentru acest tip de emisie. (ricum0 numarul de programe ce vor *i transmise depeste
cu mult numarul actual de programe0 aa c vor aparea programe romneti noi0 #n msura #n
?!eleviziunea digitala va cuceri audiovizualul #n urmatorii trei ani@. /rticol din Uiarul Financiar0 -.12.200%
)ttp=[[ intern.tvr.ro !eleviziunea #n .uropa0 accesat #n 20 decem$rie 200%
Uiarul Financiar ?!eleviziunea digital va cuceri audiovizualul #n urmatorii trei ani@0 1-.12.200%
40
care pia"a va *urniza resursele *inanciare necesare. ( serie de alte pro$leme vor tre$ui
a$ordate prin strategii nationale. Foarte importanta va *i in*ormarea pu$licului i
reglementarea pie"ei de televizoare.
(amenii vor tre$ui avertizati c dup 2011 nu vor mai putea *olosi televizoarele analogice
Cinclusiv plasme sau <15D la recep"ia cu antena0 dect dac le doteaza cu set8top8$o3 uri.
!otodat0 cei care ac)izi"ioneaz televizoare vor tre$ui in*orma"i c numai televizoarele cu
indicativele B5!P0 B5!P 10%0p Crezolu"ia ma3imD sau !>! B50 recon*irmat prin prezen"a
#n prospect a men"iunii privind compresia ,7.+40 pot recep"iona programele de #nalt
de*ini"ie CB5D. !elevizoarele marcate cu indicativul KB5 ;eadE@ nu o*er de *apt recep"ie
digital0 iar men"iunea K5P6@ sau K5P6!@ nu con*irm dect recep"ia digital standard0 nu i
pe cea B5.
:n Fran"a0 pentru a se evita ast*el de con*uzii de*avora$ile consumatorului i pentru a se
stimula dezvoltarea programelor digitale standard i B50 #ncepnd cu luna martie 200' este
interzis prin lege vnzarea televizoarelor care nu au recep"ie digital Crespectiv cele care nu
au indicativul 5P6 sau !>!D0 iar de la 1 decem$rie 200% au intrat #n vigoare restric"ii privind
comercializarea televizoarelor care nu au recep"ie B5 8 cele care nu au indicativul B5!P sau
!>! B5. /semenea reglementri0 inclusiv msuri de su$ven"ionare a set8top8$o38urilor0 vor
tre$ui s *ie luate i #n ;omnia0 unde0 e3ist televizoare cu recep"ie B5.
:n televiziunea B50 *ormatul 16='0 mai con*orm cu vederea uman0 nu are de*ormarea pe
l"ime din emisia analogic sau digital standard i preia toata in*orma"ia din imaginea
cinematogra*ic. 7rin reducerea distan"ei *a" de ecran rezult o cretere a numrului de linii la
circa 12000 ceea ce ar impune un canal cu o $and de apro3imativ 4 ori mai mare dect la
televiziunea conven"ional. !eleviziunea digital 5!P C:igital televisionD0 #n *unc"ie de
carcteristicile imaginii0 se poate clasi*ica ast*el=
L televiziunea de de*ini"ie standard S5!P CStandard definitionD0 asigurnd rezolu"ia
televiziunii analogiceO
L televiziunea cu de*ini"ie #m$unt"it .5!P C6nhanced definitionDO
televiziunea de #nalt de*ini"ie B5!P C#igh-definition televisionD.
46
S5!P pentru un *ormat al imaginii de 4=3 asigur pentru *iecare din cele 4%0 linii ale unui
cadru un numr de 640 pi3eli [ linie cu pi3eli de *orm ptrat sau -04 pi3eli [ linie pentru
pi3eli dreptung)iulari Craport 10=11D. 7entru *ormatul imaginii de 16=' asigur pentru *iecare
din cele 4%0 linii un numr de -04 pi3eli [ linie cu pi3eli dreptung)iulari Craport 40=33D.
Standardele care permit di*uzarea programelor de televiziune la calitate S5!P i B5!P sunt=
L 5P6 C:igital Dideo HroadcastingD pentru .uropaO
L /!S1 C5dvanced Television S'stems +ommitteeD pentru /merica i 1anada0
L IS56 C.ntegrated Services :igital HroadcastingD pentru Waponia.
Sistemul 5P60 *olosit pentru transmisia S5!P i B5!P0 are de *apt trei
speci*ica"ii i anume=
L 5P68! CTerrestrialD0 pentru transmisia terestrO
L 5P68S CSatelliteD0 pentru transmisia prin intermediul sateli"ilorO
L 5P681 C+ableD0 pentru transmisia prin ca$lu.
1ele trei sisteme utilizeaz te)nici de modula"ie di*erite0 ast*el=
L 5P68! utilizeaz 168]/, CIuadrature 5mplitude &odulationD sau 648]/, la
care se adaug codarea canalului 1(F5, i modula"ia ierar)ic Chierarchical
moculationD O
L 5P68S utilizeaz %87SI sau 168]/,O
L 5P681 utilizeaz 168]/,0 328]/,0 648]/,0 12%8]/,0 sau
2568]/,.
4-
)ttp=[[ intern.tvr.ro !eleviziunea #n .uropa0 accesat #n 20 decem$rie 200%
41
:n sistemul B5!P0 sunetul este *oarte important0 ast*el noile ec)ipamente tre$uie s *ie
compati$ile cu 5ol$E SEstem Surround. Simpli*icnd0 B5!P aduce nou= o imagine mai lat0 o
rezolu"ie de 10 ori mai mare i un sunet de o calitate sporit.
:n ;omnia0 transmisia B5 poate *i e3perimentata de&a prin intermediul !P; B5 i 7;(
!P B5. :n 1e)ia televiziunea pu$lic emite de&a prin satelit #n sistem B5 de anul acesta. 1a
i #n cazul !P;0 postul ce) transmite e3perimental pentru telespectatori doar cteva programe
#n noul sistem0 urmnd ca programul integral B5 s *ie transmis de la &umtatea acestui an. :n
Fran"a cinci posturi de televiziune terestr digital au *ost lansate #n octom$rie 200%0 #n sistem
B5.
!eleviziunile pu$lice olandeze au trecut i ele anul acesta la transmisia tv B5. 7rima a *ost
transmisia e3perimental a emisiunilor canalului >ederland 1. 6ene*iciarii postului sunt att
a$ona"ii olandezi prin ca$lu0 ct i telespectatorii care recepteaz #n sistem 5!B Cdirect to
)omeD. (peratorii pu$lici olandezi inten"ioneaz dealt*el s demareze procesul de digitalizare
completa cu cele trei canale pu$lice principalele >ederland 10 >ederland 2 i >ederland 3.
Impactul B5 are i critici #n rndul consumatorilor. :n Finlanda #ntre 20.000 i 40.000 de
*amilii i8au pierdut dreptul de recep"ie tv pe data de ' septem$rie 200-. 7rima op"iune #n
rezolvarea crizei a *ost ac)izi"ionarea su$ventionat de ctre stat a decodoarelor i
receptoarelor tv digitale. /st*el0 %5H dintre cei care utilizau antena terestr au *cut trecerea la
noul sistem0 #n vreme ce0 pentru *amiliile conectate la ca$lu tv0 ci*ra a sczut cu 61H. :ntre
"rile *oste comuniste0 7olonia a reuit neo*icial s *ie considerat una dintre cele mai
dinamice pie"e din audiovizualul .uropei 1entrale i de .st. ,otivele nu sunt #ntmpltoare.
:n urm cu trei ani au *ost lansate aici sistemele I7!P0 o noua plat*orm 5!B i servicii B5.
1u toate acestea )arta audiovizualului polonez arat #n prezent c serviciile I7!P sunt
de"inute de ,S( C,ultiple SEstem (peratorD ,ultimedia 7ols4a0 cu o*erte destul de limitate
i cu o distri$u"ie mai mult regional.
4%
!eleviziunea pu$lic polonez !P7 S/ a lansat tot #n anul 2006 patru noi canale cu
di*uzare pe satelit0 posturi tv tematice Cde e3emplu !P7 Bistoria lansat #n noiem$rie 2006D0
*apt ce a generat critici severe din partea autorit"ilor i a pu$licului polonez. !P7 a *ost
criticat pentru planurile sale care includeau atunci lansarea a nu mai pu"in de alte patru
canale tv tematice. 1riticii au declarat c !P7 #i va pierde #n acest *el caracterul pu$lic al
activit"ilor i poate *i considerat o organiza"ie mai degra$ comercial dect una
su$ven"ionat cu venituri de la stat. :n sc)im$0 serviciul I!P7 a avut un de$ut de succes i a
ctigat distinc"ia pentru Kcea mai interesant o*erta $road$and^ din 7olonia.
7n #n prezent0 ca i #n cazul ;omniei0 nici legisla"ia polonez nu este #nc armonizat
cu cerin"ele comunitare i nici adaptat evolu"iei te)nicii i te)nologiilor media actuale0 iar
demersurile din 7olonia pentru digitalizare sunt #nc di*icile. 1u toate acestea0 7olonia este
una dintre "rile spa"iului *ost comuniste cu cel mai rapid ritm de dezvoltare a sectorului
audiovizual din ultimii ani. 7entru ;omnia ?amenin"area@ televiziunii digitale0 metamor*oza
o$ligatorie pn #n 2012 pentru toat 2niunea .uropean0 nu pare s mite prea mult
autorit"ile.
;omnia a primit opt *recvente digitale de la 6ru3elles. ;e"elele analogice Ccele pe care
emit #n prezent posturile din ;omniaD nu vor mai avea ast*el nici un *el de protec"ie din
momentul #n care 2niunea .uropean va trece la digitalizare. /adar0 #n mod normal0 i aici ar
tre$ui s nu mai avem de8a *ace cu tradi"ionalul telespectator cu telecomanda0 ci de cel la
mo$il0 la calculator i la alte device8uri multimedia ca #n toate "rile occidentale.
)ttp=[[ intern.tvr.ro !eleviziunea #n .uropa0 accesat #n 20 decem$rie 200%
)ttp=[[ intern.tvr.ro !eleviziunea in .uropa0 accesat #n 20 decem$rie 200%
42
1onsumatorul ar tre$ui s ai$ puterea de a8i programa singur emisiunile i s)o98urile
care #i plac. Piitoarele e*ecte ale digitalizrii la nivelul consumatorilor au *ost imaginate i de
specialitii comunitari. /st*el #n 20040 ei au o$servat cum te)nologia sc)im$ dramatic pia"a0
aa c au #ncercat s surprind aceste tendin"e la nivel legislativ. /a a #nceput revizuirea
directivei !eleviziunea *r Frontiere0 despre care am vor$it anterior.
3oile standarde de transmisie Tv) 6e la digital - live pe mo!il
>u doar provocarea B5 st #n *a"a di*uzorilor i consumatorilor de audiovizual. Serviciile
mo$il 8 tv permit i ele #n premier di*uzarea programelor de tiri i sport0 dar i a altor genuri0
direct pe tele*onul mo$il. 2niunea .uropean a considerat din start domeniulca *iind unul de
interes ma&or anticipnd c)iar dezvoltarea unei pie"e de apro3imativ 20 de miliarde de euro i
de peste 500 de milioane de clien"i0 pn #n anul 2011.
4'
Sistemul 5P68B C5igital Pideo 6roadcasting *or Band)eldsD a *ost considerat de o*icialii
europeni ca *iind Kunul dintre cele mai puternice sisteme #n viitorul tele*oniei mo$ile^
50
0 2...
contri$uind cu apro3imativ 40 de milioane de .uro la *inalizarea cercetrilor i la
implementarea standardului #n 1% "ri europene. 7otrivit specialitilor 200% a *ost anul #n care
recep"ionarea programelor tv pe mo$il au #nregistrat creteri ma&ore mai ales ca urmare a
organizrii unor evenimente sportive importante precum 1ampionatul .uropean de Fot$al din
/ustria i .lve"ia i Wocurile (limpice de la 6ei&ing. Standardele *olosite pentru di*uzarea
programelor tv pe mo$il sunt=
L 5P68B C5igital Pideo 6roadcasting *or Band)eldsD 8 .uropa0 S2/0 /*rica de Sud i
/sia
L S85,6 CSatellite 5igital ,ultimedia 6roadcastD 8 1oreea de Sud0 Waponia
L S!I,I CSatellite !errestial Interactive ,ultiservice In*rastructureD 8 1)ina
L ,ediaF<( 8 lansat #n S2/ i testat #n ,area 6ritanie i +ermania
L IS568! CIntegrated Service 5igital 6roadcastingD 8 Waponia
L !85,6 C!errestial 5igital ,ulitmedia 6roadcastD 8 1oreea de Sud0 +ermania.
51
:n ,area 6ritanie0 spre e3emplu0 661 (ne0 I!P1 i 1)annel 4 sunt canalele !P care iau
lansat emisia programelor !P pe tele*oanele mo$ile0 ca urmare a noilor servicii de tele*onie
lansate de compania 6!. 6! ,ovio o*er emisie live a programelor cu e3cep"ia unor *ilme i
transmisii sportive. 7e $aza unui contract0 clien"ii vor plti o sum lunar0 iar #n sc)im$
compania le o*er acestora aparatul i serviciul de recep"ie a programelor !P gratuit.
2n studiu comandat de 1on*erin"a .uropean a /dministra"iilor de 7ota i
!elecomunica"ii C1.7!D a eviden"iat pro$lema poten"ialei inter*eren"e dintre tele*oanele
mo$ile i serviciile tv
52
. ;eprezentan"ii .62 c)iar au avertizat cu privire la inter*eren"a cu
serviciile de televiziune digital #n cazul #n care serviciilor de televiziune pe mo$il li se va
permite s di*uzeze #n aceleai $enzi de *recven". 2niunea Interna"ional de !elecomunica"ii
este #ns cea care va decide #n cele din urm care $enzi de *recven"a sunt cele mai potrivite
pentru emisia de televiziune mo$ila0 iar spectrul luat #n considera"ie include $enzile 2BF0 IP
J P C4-0 8 %62 ,BzD din ;egiunea 1 a 2niunii Interna"ionale de !elecomunica"ii CI!2D ce
)ttp=[[ intern.tvr.ro !eleviziunea #n .uropa0 accesat #n 20 decem$rie 200%
)ttp=[[ intern.tvr.ro !eleviziunea in .uropa0 accesat #n 20 decem$rie 200%
)ttp=[[ intern.tvr.ro !eleviziunea #n .uropa0 accesat #n 20 decem$rie 200%
999.mcti.ro0 pagin 9e$ accesat #n data de 2' octom$rie 200%
43
cuprinde .uropa0 /*rica i pr"i din (rientul ,i&lociu0 care sunt #n mod curent *olosite pentru
emisia tv.
KServiciile de satelit pentru televiziunea mo$il au marele avanta& de a putea s acopere
cea mai mare parte a teritoriului 2niunii .uropene a&ungnd ast*el la ma&oritatea cet"enilor
din "rile 2niunii. >oile servicii reprezint o ocazie *r precedent de a permite tuturor
europenilor accesul la noile servicii de comunica"ii0 nu doar #n zonele metropolitane0 ci i #n
regiunile rurale i mai putin populate^
53
1omisia .uropean a *cut pu$lic lansarea procedurii de selec"ie pentru proiectul unui
satelit pan8european. (peratorii noului satelit vor putea o*eri servicii pentru trans*er de date
de #nalt vitez0 televiziune pe mo$il0 servicii #n caz de dezastru i servicii medicale la
distant"0 printr8o procedur unic de selec"ie i nu prin calea anterioar0 care presupunea
parcurgerea procedurilor aplicate #n cele 2- de administra"ii naionale. <icen"a de spectru #n
$enzi de 2 +Bz ar putea ast*el intra #n vigoare anul acesta. 1i*rele date pu$licit"ii de 1omisia
.uropean arat c .uropa de"ine 40H din pia"a mondial de producere0 lansare i operare a
sateli"ilor
54
.
Te%nologia sc%im! timpul de pu!licitate
;evolu"ia produs #n spa"iul audiovizual de pe Internet0 tele*onia mo$ila i televiziunea
digital a adus cu sine sc)im$ri propuse de 1omisia .uropean i amendate de comisiile
7arlamentului .uropean. /cestea aveau drept scop principal actualizarea reglementrilor
privind pu$licitatea televizat #n noul conte3t aprut. :n principal0 dup ce a su*erit o serie de
amendamente #n 1omitetul de 1ultura al legislativului european0 directiva supus votului
prevedea o sc)im$are a regimului de inserare a pu$licit"ii #n programele !P.
/st*el0 dac #n prezent unii di*uzori garantau doar c pauzele pu$licitare nu pot *i
introduse la mai pu"in de 20 de minute una de alta #n cadrul unei ore de emisie0 cu unele
e3cep"ii 8 noua directiv sta$ilete c pauzele se limiteaz la una dup *iecare 30 de minute.
!otodat0 aceasta include i reglementari #n privin"a product placement8ului !P adic
inserarea de $randuri Kla vedere?0 contra cost0 #n diverse emisiuni televizate i asta dei
multe organiza"ii de protec"ie a consumatorilor se opun total noii metode pu$licitare.
binnd cont de dezvoltarea rapid a televiziunii digitale pe mo$il i prin Internet0 care
permite serviciilor gen video8on8demand sau I7!P0 directiva d und verde acestei practici0
interzicnd8o totui #n programele de tiri0 #n cele pentru copii i #n docutavellingulmentare. (
condi"ie o reprezint interzicerea completa a product8placement8ului pentru "igri0 #n timp ce
televiziunile ar urma s introduc msuri de siguran" pentru protec"ia independen"ei
editoriale0 #n cazul transmisiilor ce includ inserari ale unor ast*el de mrci.
2ezultate post-aderare n audiovizualul pu!lic romnesc
;omnia a anun"at de&a implementarea complet a directivei serviciilor media
audiovizuale la un an dup intrarea #n vigoare a noii directive europene. /ceasta #nseamn
constituirea unei pie"e unice pentru toate serviciile media audiovizuale care s o*ere
#ntreprinderilor certitudine &uridic i telespectatorilor programe mai variate i de mai $un
calitate. 1omisia va veri*ica dac aceste modi*icri implementeaz complet directiva 2niunii
53
5eclaratia 1omisarului .uropean pentru telecomunica"ii0 Piviane ;eding. 2006 sursa
)ttp=[[ intern.tvr.ro !eleviziunea #n .uropa0 pagin accesat #n 20 decem$rie 200%
54
)ttp=[[ec.europa.eu[inde3\en.)tm0 pagin 9e$ accesat #n data de 5 noiem$rie 200%
44
.uropene din 200-.
55
1elelalte 26 de state mem$re ale 2.0 precum i statele mem$re ale
Spa"iului .conomic .uropean CIslanda0 >orvegia i <iec)tensteinD i "rile candidate C1roatia0
Fosta ;epu$lica Iugoslava a ,acedoniei i !urciaD sunt #nc #n plin proces de implementare a
noilor norme.
7rogresul este lent #n multe state mem$re= unele guverne nu au organizat consultri
pu$lice cu privire la modul #n care normele 2... vor *unc"iona #n "ara lor C5anemarca0
+ermania0 Italia0 Slovenia0 Slovacia i SpaniaD. :n 6elgia0 ;epu$lica 1e)0 Finlanda0 Irlanda0
<etonia0 (landa i 7ortugalia0 proiectele noilor norme sunt gata pentru procedurile
parlamentare care vor *i demarate #n 200'. <u3em$urg a a*irmat c a implementat o parte din
norme0 mai ales pe cele despre pu$licitate. /ustria va *ace acelai lucru #n ianuarie 200'. :n
Fran"a0 un proiect de lege a *ost #naintat /dunrii >a"ionale #n decem$rie 200%.
>oile norme europene *aciliteaz accesul productorilor i *urnizorilor de programe !P la
*inan"area din noi *orme de pu$licitate audiovizual = pu$licitatea pe ecran parta&at Csplit
screenD sau plasarea de produse0 care sunt permise #n toate programele0 cu e3cep"ia tirilor0 a
*ilmelor documentare i a programelor pentru copii. 7osturile de televiziune pot #ntrerupe
programele mai uor datorit suprimrii normei care impunea o perioad de douzeci de
minute #ntre pauzele pu$licitare. Se vizeaz consolidarea sectorului !P i audiovizual
european prin reducerea reglementrilor i crearea unor condi"ii ec)ita$ile pentru serviciile
media audiovizuale K*r *rontiere@.
56
Eramatica de televiziune i 8ilm
!eleviziunea i *ilmul utilizeaz #n comun anumite conven"ii denumite generic Kgramatica
audiovizualului@. 1onven"iile nu sunt reguli. 7racticienii0 mai ales editorii de imagine0 uneori0
#ncalc cu $un tiin" aceste conven"ii0 pentru a su$linia un aspect sau altul din materialul pe
care8l editeaz.
0lemente de !az ale gramaticii de televiziune
1. 1adrul cinematogra*ic sau de televiziune se re*er la cmpul vizual al camerei de luat
vederi. 1eea ce se poate vedea la un moment dat prin o$iectivul camerei i poate *i #nregistrat0
poart denumirea generic de cadru. :n &urul acestei denumiri s8a dezvoltat un $ogat &argon
pro*esional= ce se vede #n cadru0 a intra sau a iei din cadru0 etc.
2. Scena. Scena reprezint o unitate dramatic compus dintr8un singur cadru sau din mai
multe cadre. ( scen se des*oar0 de o$icei0 #ntr8o perioad continu de timp0 #n acelai loc
i care implic aceleai persona&e. 2n e3emplu clasic care este utilizat la cursurile de
operatorie este secven"a care red intrarea sau ieirea dintr8o camer.
3. Secven"a. ( secven" este o unitate dramatic compus din mai multe din mai multe scene0
toate legate #ntre ele de momentul narativ sau emo"ional pe care8l ilustreaz.
55
999.cna.ro0 pagin 9e$ accesat #n data de 4 noiem$rie 200%
56
;eprezentanta 1omisiei .uropene in ;omnia 8 pu$licat 1' 5ecem$rie 200%0 999.ec.europa.eu[;omnia[,
pagin 9e$ accesat #n data de 5 noiem$rie 200%
45
4. +enul unui program. +enurile programelor de televiziune includ urmtoarele categorii=
soap opera0 sitcomuri Ccomedii de situa"ieD0 *ilme documentare0 &ocuri i concursuri0 programe
de tiri0 *ilme poli"iste0 etc.
5. Serie de programe. Seria de programe reprezint o succesiune de programe cu un *ormat
standard.
6. Serial. Serialul este o produc"ie care ilustreaz o poveste cadru Ce3= istoria *amiliei
+ulgem$urgO (nedin <ine0 5allas0 etc.D #n care *iecare episod #ncepe din locul #n care s8a
#nc)eiat episodul anterior. 7rogramele Ksoap opera@sunt seriale.
-. Interviurile i declara"iile Ctal4ing )eadsD. :n *ilmele documentare sunt utilizate mai multe
interviuri ale unor e3per"i care e3plic0 demonstreaz anumite evenimente0 teorii0 etc. :n
aceste cazuri #ntre$rile intervievatorului sunt eliminate la editare.
%. Po3 pop. /ceast e3presie reprezint *orma prescurtat a *ormulei din lim$a latin Kvo3
populi@0 vocea poporului. :n cadrul anumitor reporta&e sau *ilme documentare sun incluse
declara"ile unor martori oculari0 ale unor participan"i la evenimentul re*lectat #n program0 etc.
!uturor persoanelor intervievate li se pune aceeai #ntre$are0 iar rspunsurile sunt editate
ulterior #n cascad Cunul dup altulD. .ste o modalitate de a arta care este curentul de opinie
despre o anumit tem a*lat pe agenda pu$lic. 6ine#n"eles c aceste preri nu pot *i
ec)ivalate cu un sonda& de opinie care red tendin"a ma&oritar a opiniei pu$lice despre un
anumit su$iect. Selec"ia opiniilor este inevita$il su$iectiv i #n cele mai multe cazuri
urmrete s sus"in politica editorial a canalului de televiziune respectiv.
'. Interte3tualitate. Interte3tualitatea se re*er la rela"iile #ntre di*erite elemente ale Kmediului@
#n care este di*uzat emisiunea cum sunt pozi"ia #n gril0 i rela"iile cu alte tipuri de media. 2n
alt aspect privind interte3tualitatea se re*er la *aptul c participan"ii la un program de
televiziune cunoscu"i din alte apari"ii #n mass8media pot aduce cu ei imaginea rezultat din
celelalte apari"ii #n pu$lic. /lt aspect care "ine de interte3tualitate se re*er la pu$licitatea care
poate #ncadra emisiunea respectiv.
Fncadraturile
5ac lum ca unitate de re*erin" ecranul de televizor sau de cinema0 #ncadraturile sau
planurile cinematogra*ice se re*er la propor"iile #n care corpul uman este reprezentat pe
ecran. 5in aceast perspectiv avem urmtoarele #ncadraturi=
1. 7lan general sau cum este cunoscut #n practica romneasc de televiziune0 plan #ntreg
C<ong S)ot <SD. :n acest plan0 corpul uman este reprezentat #n #ntregime i putem s vedem
i o parte din mediul cre8l #ncon&oar. :n unele manuale e3ist i o variant a acestei
#ncadraturi0 .3treme <ong S)ot CN<SD0 #n care corpul uman se vede #n #ntregime0 dar ocup o
supra*a" redus a ecranului0 #n compara"ie cu mediul am$iant. :n acest caz0 este accentuat
$ac4groundul persona&ului0 mediul0 conte3tul #n care se a*l persoana *ilmat. 5e o$icei
planul general se utilizeaz la #nceputul unei secven"e sau la #nceputul reporta&ului0
documentarului i c)iar la #nceputul unor *ilme artistice0 pentru a localiza ac"iunea. 5in cauza
*aptului c ecranul televizorului are dimensiuni reduse0 acest plan este *olosit mai ales #n
cinematogra*ie dect #n televiziune.
2. 7lan mediu C,edium S)ot ,SD. :n aceast #ncadratur persona&ul ocup pe ecran o
supra*a" apro3imativ egal cu supra*a"a ocupat de mediul #n care se a*l. :ntr8un plan mediu0
corpul uman este reprezentat de la $ru pn #n cretetul capului. 2n persona& *ilmat #n acest
tip de cadru are loc su*icient pentru a gesticula0 pentru a *ace micri nu *oarte ample. 7lanul
mediu are o variant0 cunoscut su$ denumirea de plan mediu apropiat C,edium 1lose S)ot
,1SD0 #n care corpul uman apare de la nivelul pieptului p#n #n cretetul capului. :n practica
46
de televiziune din ;omnia0 care are la $az e3perien"a pro*esional din televiziunea pu$lic
!P; s8au #ncet"enit denumirile de plan mediu I i plan mediu II. 7lanul mediu este planul
speci*ic dialogului #ntre persona&e. 5e e3emplu0 telenovelele *olosesc *recvent aceast
#ncadratur0 pentru c planul mediu permite #ncadrarea la acelai nivel a dou persoane care
discut un anume su$iect.
3. 7rim planul C1lose82p0 12D. 5ac avem de *ilmat o scen #n care tre$uie s surprindem
*a"a unui persona&0 avem la dispozi"ie prim8planul0 #n care corpul uman apare de la nivelul
umerilor #n sus. .ste cel mai *olosit plan #n &urnalele de televiziune pentru prezentatori0
#ntruct ast*el se concentreaz aten"ia telespectatorilor asupra persoanei care Klivreaz@
pu$licului. 5e asemenea0 prim8planul permite detaarea persona&ului de conte3tul #n care se
a*l. 7rim8planul ne spune K#n acest moment este mai important persona&ul dect locul unde se
a*l@.
4. +ros 7lanul C6ig 1lose82p0 612D. :n acest #ncadratur corpul uman apare de la nivelul
$r$iei0 pn #n cretetul capului0 uor tiat. +ros 7lanul concentrez aten"ia telespectatorilor
asupra tririlor persona&ului0 asupra emo"iilor acestuia. +ros planul ne arat $ucuria0 triste"ea0
#ntruct *a"a uman ocup aproape tot ecranul i putem vedea #n detaliu reac"iile persona&ului.
.ste un plan speci*ic *ilmelor artistice i documentarelor0 #n care se urmresc reac"iile
oamenilor #n diverse situa"ii. +ros planul este *olosit uneori i #n cadrul intervurilor0 pentru a
#ntri tensiunea dialogului i a pentru sugera telespectaorilor vinov"ia intervievatului sau dac
acesta minte. /tunci cnd avem interviuri cu persoane pu$lice0 gros planul este *oarte rar
*olosit0 *iind pre*erate planul mediu i prim planul0 care sugereaz o anumit distan" #ntre
intervievat i intervevator. /ceast pre*erin" se $azeaz i pe *aptul c #n cultura occidental0
spa"iul din &urul unei persoane0 pn la 60 de centimetri0 este considerat spa"iu privat0 iar gros
planul ar *i considerat agresiv0 ca o invadare a spa"iului privat sau o apropiere interpersonal
neacccepta$il pro*esional #ntre intervievat i intervievator.
5. 7lanul detaliu C.3treme 1lose82p0 N12D. 7lanul detaliu con"ine doar pr"i ale corpului
uman0 de e3emplu doar oc)ii sau doar o mn. 7lanul detaliu este de o$icei un plan de trecere0
de la o secven" la alta0 de la un ung)i de *ilmare la altul sau evit ceea ce editorii de imagine
denumesc Ksritura peste a3a de *ilmare sau pe scurt sritura peste a3@. 7lanul detaliu este
deose$it de e3presiv0 putnd o*eri telespectatorilor in*orma"ii interesante despre su$iectul
*ilmat. 5e e3emplu0 mna unui "ran0 ars de soare0 #ncletat pe mnerul unei coase sau
detalii ale sarco*agului *araonului !utan4)amon pot induce pu$licului o anumit emo"ie0
a$solut necesar pentru orice produc"ie audiovizual. 2n plan detaliu cu nite oc)i tul$urtori
ai unei *ete a*gane0 pu$licat de revista !)e !imes0 cu ocazia luptelor #ntre mu&a)edini i
trupele sovietice de ocupa"ie0 #n anii S%00 a generat o adevrat poveste. Uece ani mai trziu0 o
ec)ip care lucra pentru canalul de televiziune >ational +eogra*ic a #nceput cutarea *etei
a*gane0 pornind de la acea *otogra*ie0 un plan detaliu cu oc)ii. 5up mai multe luni de cutri
i veri*icri antropometrice0 *ata a *ost gsit. 7ovestea s8a *inalizat cu un documentar de
succes0 di*uzat de >ational +eogra*ic.
6. 7lanul american sau planul interna"ional. <a #ncadraturile clasice care pot *i gsite #n orice
manual de specialitate0 se adaug un cadru particular0 corpul uman vzut de deasupra
genunc)ilor i pn #n cretetul capului. /ceast #ncadratur intermediar0 #ntre planul general
i planul mediu0 este utilizat *recvent #n televiziune de reporterii care realizeaz transmisii
directe pentru c pe ecran0 lng silueta reporterului0 este su*icient spa"iu pentru a #ncadra
cldirea de unde se *ace trasnmisia sau se poate vedea un element smni*icativ de la *a"a
locului. 5e e3emplu0 la 7aris0 coresponden"ii strini realizeaz coresponden"ele normale de pe
4-
.splanad0 pentru c #n *undal se vede *oarte $ine turnul .i**el0 care0 *iind la o distan"
su*ucient de mare0 poate *i plasat #n cadru0 la dreapta sau la stnga reporterului.
5ac nu ne mai raportm la corpul uman0 la #ncadraturile prezentate pn acum se mai adaug
urmtoarele =
-. 7lan ansam$lu. .ste planul cel mai cuprinztor ca in*orma"ie0 dar este pu"in utilizat #n
televiziune pentru c o$iectele cuprinse #n cadru se disting greu. .ste un plan utilizat #n
special #n cinematogra*ie. 5e e3emplu0 dac *ilmm un accident pentru un &urnal de tiri0
planul ansam$lu ne va a&uta s localizm accidentul0 #ntr8o cur$0 #n pant0 etc.
%. 7lanul general. /cest plan este mai restrns ca cuprindere dect planul ansam$lu i
cuprinde de o$icei Knucleul dur@ al in*orma"iei vizuale. 5ac rmnem la acelai e3emplu cu
accidentul0 planul general va arta *elul #n care s8au ciocnit mainile0 dar nu ne va permite s
localizm accidentul0 ceea ce se va *ace cu planul ansam$lu.
Ang%iurile de 8ilmare
2ng)iurile de *ilmare se re*er la direc"ia i #nl"imea de la camerele de luat vederi
*ilmeaz.
1. 2ng)iul normal de *ilmare. 1onven"ia de de televiziune din acest capitol speci*ic *aptul c
programele non*ic"iune0 cum sunt &urnalele de tiri0 interviurile curente0 documentarele
tiin"i*ice0 tal48s)o98urile sunt *ilmate la nivelul oc)ilor. /ceast pozi"ie a camerei video este
cunoscut su$ denumirea de Kung)i normal de *ilmare@.
2. Filmarea #n Kplon&ee@. /tunci cnd camera video se a*l deasupra persona&ului0 acest mod
de *ilmare transmite telespectatorilor o anume superioritate asupra persoanei *ilmate sau
sugereaz o anumit detaare de aceasta. 7ersona&ul *ilmat #n plon&ee este minimalizat0 strivit
prin acest mod de *ilmare.
3. Filmarea #n contre8plon&ee. :n aceast situa"ie0 camera video se a*l su$ nivelul oc)ilor
persona&ului0 ceea ce #i con*er acestuia o importan" mult mai mare dect are #n realitate0 #i
con*er o anumit mre"ie0 o anumit prestan". 5e o$icei0 #n *ilmele artistice cu su$iect
istoric persona&ele pricipale sunt *ilmate *recvent #n contre8plon&ee. ( pozi"ie *avorit este
pozi"ia Kclare@0 camera video a*lndu8se pe sol. Ri #n *ilmele de ac"iune0 cu persona&e
Keroice@0 *ilmarea #n contre8plon&e este adesea *olosit. .ste cazul seriei K;am$o@0 #n care
eroul principal este *ilmat *recvent #n contre8plon&ee. Filmarea #n contre8plon&ee mai are rolul
de a estompa di*eren"a de #nl"ime #ntre actori0 #n cazul #n care avem0 de e3emplu0 $r$a"i
actori mai scunzi dect *emei actori C!om 1ruise este de asemenea un e3empluD.
*icrile camerei de luat vederi
1ele mai multe *ilmri se *ac cu camera de luat vederi la punct *i3. Rcoala american de
&urnalism pune un mare accent pe cadrele *i3e. :n &urnalele 1>> #ntlnim *oarte rar cadre
luate prin micarea camerei video.
1. 7anoramarea. :n acest caz camera video este la punct *i3 i se rotete #n &urul unei a3e0
pstrnd aceeai #ncadratur. 7utem avea panoramare pe orizontal0 de la stnga la dreapta i
invers i panoramare pe vertical0 de &os #n sus i de sus #n &os. 7anoramarea permite
operatorului s descrie o ac"iune sau un anumit cmp #n care se petrece o activitate important
4%
pentru ac"iunea #n curs. :n transmisiile sportive panoramarea este *recvent utilizat pentru a
descrie traseul unui $alon de *ot$al0 traseul unei maini a*lat #n curs. 1u a&utorul
panoramrii pe vertical putem descrie o cldire0 care nu K#ncape@ #n cmpul camerei de luat
vederi. 5e e3emplu0 *iecare episod din serialul 5allas #ncepea cu o panoramare de &os #n sus a
cldirii .9ning (il. Piteza cu care se realizeaz panoramarea este varia$il. 5ac viteza este
prea mare i camera video se *ocalizeaz automat0 pe durata panoramrii vom avea o uoar
de*ocalizare care se mani*est ca Kperdea ce"oas@0 imaginea devenind neclar. 7entru ca
imaginea s se pstreze Kclar@ pe toat durata panoramrii0 viteza de panoramare tre$uie
corelat cu posi$ilit"ile camerei de a se autoregla0 #n cazul #n a*ar de cazul #n care
panoramarea est com$inat cu reglarea manual a *ocalizrii Cs)arp *ocusD.
2. !ravellingul. !ravellingul se realizeaz prin deplasarea camerei video0 de8a lungul a3ei de
*ilmare sau perpendicular pe a3a de *ilmare0 pstr#nd aceeai #ncadratur. ,icarea de
travelling este utilizat pentru a urmri ac"iunea unui persona&0 #n cazul prezentrilor #n studio
#n care prezentatorul se deplaseaz0 pentru a crea o dinamic mai mare prezen"ei sale #n *a"a
camerei de luat vederi. /ceast micare este speci*ic cinematogra*iei0 iar #n televiziune o
#ntlnim mai des #n emisiunile de divertisment. 5e e3emplu0 emisiunea K1linescu s)o9@0
con"inea o secven" cu un travelling utilizat pentru a descrie momentele de aplauze ale
pu$licului participant la emisiune. !ravellingul este o micare mai greu de realizat0 #ntruct
camera video este *i3at pe un crucior care se deplaseaz pe ine. :n &urnalele de tiri
realizate pe *ilm0 #nainte de apari"ia televiziunii0 care puteau *i urmrite #n slile de cinema0
micarea de travelling a *ost introdus de regizoarea german <ennie ;ie*ensta)l. /ceasta a
realizat diverse cadre prin panoramare cu ocazia *ilmrilor marilor demonstra"ii naziste0
#ncl"nd operatorul cu patine cu rotile i deplasndu8l lent0 de8a lungul terenului unde erau
organizate mani*estrile.
3. !rans*ocarea sau zoom Cmicare opticD. !rans*ocarea are dou variante= trans*ocarea
#nainte Czom inD i trans*ocarea #napoi Czoom outD. !rans*ocarea nu est o micare propriu
zis a camerei video. .ste o micare a lentilelor care prin deplasarea una *a" de cealalt
sc)im$ *ocalizarea. /tunci cnd realizm o trans*ocare #napoi0 su$iectul poate *i ini"ial
#ncadrat la prim8plan0 iar la terminarea micrii s *ie #ncadrat la plan general. /ceast
trans*ocare pune #n eviden" mediul #n care se a*l persona&ul *ilmat0 ne arat cu cine vor$ete
sau ce se #ntmpl #n apropierea sa. /tunci cnd realizm o trans*ocare #nainte0 dintr8un
anumit ansam$lu0 reprezentat de cadrul ini"ial0 punem #n eviden" un anumit detaliu0 care se
va regsi #n cadrul o$"inut la s*#ritul micrii. !rans*ocarea rapid #nainte sau #napoi este de
asemenea utilizat #n cazul spectacolelor de divertisment. 2neori trans*ocarea rapid este
utilizat pentru crearea unei dinamici a emisiunii0 #ns utilizat e3cesiv0 trans*ocarea devine
un procedeu arti*icial care ascunde #n esen" incompeten"a realizatorilor care nu reuesc s
*ac emisiunea interesant prin con"inut.
4. :n unele manuale0 la capitolul micri optice este inclus i schimbarea de sharf Jsharf
Cnseamn claritatea imaginiiK. ,icarea de s)ar* se re*er la sc)im$area clarit"ii imaginii de
pe un o$iect sau o persoan a*lat #n cadru pe un o$iect sau o persoan a*lat #n acelai cadru0
dar #n alt plan0 de o$icei #n plan mai #ndeprtat dect o$iectul ini"ial.
:n studio0 camera video se poate deplasa pe un dispozitiv numit dollE0 care este0
simpli*icnd lucrurile0 o plac triung)iular cu trei ro"i. /ceasta poate rula uor0 apropiind sau
deprtnd camera video de su$iectul *ilmat. /propierea camerei video de su$iectul *ilmat0
creeaz telespectatorului o rela"ie ai apropiat cu persona&ul #n cauz. 5epartarea camerei de
vor$itor are e*ect invers0 induce o distan" emo"ional a pu$licului de vor$itor i
deconcentraz aten"ia pu$licului. Piteza de deplasare cu a&utorul dispozitivului numit dollE
in*luen"eaz i ea percep"ia telespectatorilor. ( micare rapid0 #n special K#nainte@ este
incitant0 readucnd aten"ia pu$licului asupra emisiunii. 5eplasarea rapid K#napoi@ rela3eaz
4'
interesul pu$licului. ,icrile camerei de luat vederi *ac partedin re"eta ascuns a oricrei
emisiuni0 deoarece0 utilizate cu inteligen"0 pot contri$ui la men"inerea interesului pu$licului
la cote c#t mai #nalte0 interes care se trans*orm #n cote de audien" i #n *inal #n $ani din
pu$licitate.
1amera video se mai poate deplasa cu a&utorul unui dispozitiv numit steadE cam0 purtat de
operator. 5ispozitivul asigur camerei video o $un sta$ilitate #n cazul deplasrii operatorului
pe scen0 permi"nd #ncadraturi de mare e*ect= prim planuri cu c#ntre"ii0 detaliile unei mini
care manevreaz cu de3teritate o g)itar0 etcD. !oate concertele #n aer li$er0 de muzic pop0
roc40 *estivalurile de muzic uoar Ceste i cazul *estivalului 1er$ul de /ur de la 6raovD
utilizeaz ast*el de dispozitive pentru deplasarea camerei de luat vederi. 1amera video mai
poate *i deplasat i cu a&utorul unei macarale. (peratorul poate *i pe macara sau nu0 #n
*unc"ie de amploarea micrii. /tunci cnd operatorul nu se a*l pe macara0 ci doar camera
video0 dispozitivul este cunoscut #n &argonul pro*esional su$ denumirea de Kcap cald@.
/cestea sunt micrile de $az ale camerei de luat vederi. 5esigur c atunci cnd
des*urarea unei ac"iuni #ntr8o oper de *ic"iune sau non*ic"iune necesit micri mai
comple3e0 realizatorii pot opta pentru micri com$inate. 1om$ina"iile #ntre panoamare i
trans*ocare sunt utilizate *recvent #n transmisiile sportive0 mai ales la cursele auto.
!ransmisiile unor spectacole de divertisment utilizeaz *recvent micri com$inate ale
camerei video.
Te%nici de editare
!e)nicile de editare sunt utilizate pentru emisiunile care nu sunt di*uzate prin transmisii
directe. :n cazul acestora0 editarea este realizat #n timp real0 de regizorul de emisie asistat de
productor0 realizator0 regizor artistic0 regizor muzical.
/ezarea cadrelor unul lng altul0 #n succesiunea sta$ilit0 se poate *ace #n urrmtoarele
moduri.
1. !ietura simpl CcutD. :n cazul editrii0 sc)im$area cadrului se *ace pentru a sc)im$a cursul
ac"iunii sau a trece de la un loc de des*uare a ac"iunii la altul. :n televiziune0 ritmul de
succesiune a tieturilor variaz de la 2 4 secunde #n cazul reporta&elor de tiri0 la - %
secunde #n cazul *ilmelor artistice i documentare. !ietura pentru sc)im$area cadrului se mai
realizeaz pentru sc)im$area scenei0 pentru a comprima timpul ac"iunii0 pentru a sc)im$a
punctul de vedere al a$ordrii su$iectului sau pentru a desc)ide o perspectiv sau o idee nou
asupra temei sau ac"iunii. :ntotdeauna e3ist o motiva"ie pentru a realiza o tietur i cei care
sunt #n situa"ia de a edita un material #nregistrat tre$uie s8i motiveze decizia ori de cte ori
*ac o tietur sau alta. :n general0 #n televiziune nu se *ace nici o manevr *r o e3plica"ie0
c)iar dac e3plica"ia respectiv nu este evident pentru toate persoanele implicate #n realizarea
materialului sau pentru telespectatori. !ranzi"iile mai pu"in a$rupte de la un cadru la altul se
realizeaz prin *ade CnegruD0 dissolve sau orice tip de e*ect= pagin0 linie care parcurge ecranul
Ktergnd@ cadrul e3istent i Ktrgnd@ noul cadru care ocup ecranul pe msur ce cadrul
anterior este ters. :n literatura de specialitate este cunonscut su$ e*ectul de 3ipe. /ceste
e*ecte0 mai mult sau mai pu"in comple3e0 att #n cazul editrii lineare ct i #n cazul editri
nonlineare sunt cuprinse #n meniul mesei de editare sau a so*tului cu a&utorul cruia se
realizeaz editarea.
50
2. !ietura de legtur sau de trecere Cmatc)ed cutD. !ietura de trecere permite o trecere lin
de la un cadru la altul i se realizeaz *recvent #n urmtoarele situa"ii=
L cnd se asigur continuitatea micriiO de e3emplu avem #n imagine o persoan care se
ridic de la mas. 7rimul cadru poate *i cu persoana care #ncepe micarea de a se
ridica0 #n cadrul urmtor acelai persona& este de&a #n picioare i se #ndreapt ctre u.
/cest gen de tietur asigur comprimarea timpului unei micri previzi$ile i *r
surprize.
L cnd se asigur completarea ac"iunii sau cnd se realizeaz o secven". 5e e3emplu
avem cazul clasic pentru studen"ii de la operatorie0 al unui persona& care intr #ntr8o
#ncpere. :n primul cadru avem persona&ul care intr #n #ncpere0 cu mna pe clan" i
ua par"ial desc)is. :n cadrul urmtor persona&ul este intrat de&a #n #ncpere0 #nc)iznd
ua0 ua *iind *ilmat #ntredesc)is. 5atorit *aptului c telespectatorii sunt preocupa"i
s urmreasc cursul ac"iunii0 nu sesizeaz #ntreruperea micrii la trecerea de la un
cadru la altul i succesiunea cadrelor apare ct se poate de natural.
L cnd avem #n cadru o activitate care *ace parte din aceeai ac"iune i nu o$ligm
telespectatorii s8i modi*ice nivelul aten"iei. 5e e3emplu avem *ilmat #n cadru un
persona& de circ care se mac)iaz sau se #m$rac cu costumul speci*ic pentru a intra #n
aren. !ot ce se #ntmpl la acest nivel0 pentru telespectatori0 nu necesit sc)im$area
centrului aten"iei.
L cnd se sc)im$ #ncadratura persona&ului *ilmat. 5e e3emplu avem un persona& *ilmat
#ntr8un plan general i este nevoie s apropiem #ncadratura0 s trecem la plan mediu.
7utem trece de la plan general la plan mediu0 respectnd continuitatea micrii. 7entru
a nu crea discon*ort telespectatorilor0 se recomand s nu se sar mai mult de dou
#ncadraturi. 7utem trece de la plan general la plan mediu0 dar nu trecem de la plan
general la prim plan0 dect dac este a$solut necesar0 aa cum vom vedea #n
continuare.
3. !ietura sritur. !ietura prin care srim a$rupt de la o scen la alta sau de la o #ncadratur
la alta se realizeaz ocazional0 numai cnd cursul ac"iunii cere acest lucru sau cnd
realizatorul tre$uie s &usti*ice telespectatorilor Kceva din cursul ac"unii@. 5ac lum un
e3emplu clasic dintr8un *ilm de ac"iune0 #n primul cadru avem un soldat care alearg pe
cmpul de lupt0 *ilmat #n plan general. :n *undal se aud zgomote de arme automate. Soldatul
cade0 :n urmtorul cadru putem avea *ilmat c)iar un plan detaliu0 o pat mare de snge care se
e3tinde rapid pe $ust. 5e o$icei o ast*el de tietur8sritur se realizeaz la #nceputul sau la
s*ritul unei ac"iuni.
4. !ietura e3plicativ sau pentru motivare. !ietura e3plicativ este realizat atunci cnd
cursul ac"iunii cere e3plicarea unui aspect mai pu"in vizi$il. !ietura de motivare este *recvent
utilizat #n dialoguri0 atunci cnd se sc)im$ vor$itorii. !ietura e3plicativ este strns legat
de ac"iune0 de micare.
5. !ietura repetat. !ietura repetat este e*ectuat atunci cnd realizatorul dorete s
oc)eze telespectatorii0 s creeze surprize sau s #ntreasc un anumit aspect. ,en"ionm c
un monta& cu tieturi repetate poate *i #nlocuit cu un monta& mai simplu0 cu cadre cu durata
mai mare0 dar e*ectul asupa telespectatorilor nu mai este acelai.
6. !ietura pentru ritm. 5intr8o anumit perspectiv0 aceast categorie este similar cu tietura
anterioar0 deose$irea constnd #n durata cadrelor. !ietura repetat se realizeaz de o$icei cu
cadre cu acceai durat0 pe cnd tietura pentru ritm se realizeaz cu cadre cu durata din ce #n
ce mai mic sau din ce #n ce mai mare. .*ectul asupra telespectatorilor poate *i de creterea
51
aten"iei sau inducerea unei stri de emo"ie0 unei stari de rela3are0 lirice. 7utem introduce #n
aceast categorie0 *r s greim i editarea emisiunilor muzicale0 a clipurilor muzicale.
.ditarea pe muzic se *ace o$ligatoriu pe ritmul muzicii0 pentru a e3ista o concordan" #ntre
sc)im$area accentului muzical i sc)im$area cadrului. 1oncordan"a #ntre sc)im$area cadrului
i sc)im$area accentului muzical este esen"ial pentru telespectatori. 5ac editarea se *ace #n
contratimp cu muzica0 telespectatorii vor #nregistra un discon*ort ma&or #n percep"ia celor
dou mesa&e= mesa&ul vizual i a mesa&ul audio. 7entru telespectatori0 rezultatul va *i pierderea
aten"iei sau sc)im$area canalului. /tunci cnd oc)iul i urec)ea intr #n con*lict0 ctig
oc)iul.
-. !ietura de reac"ie. !ietura de reac"ie este tietura care se *ace pentru a #nregistra o
anumit reac"ie a persona&ului a*lat #n cadru0 la un eveniment care tocmai s8a petrecut. 5e
o$icei este un cadru scurt0 de trecere0 #ntre dou cadre apar"innd aceluiai su$iect. /ccest gen
de tietur este *olosit curent att #n *ilmele documentare ct i #n *ilmele de *ic"iune.
%. !ietura insert. :n acest caz0 tietura se realizeaz pentru a introduce un cadru de trecere0
care o*er un detaliu esen"ial al ac"iunii sau care permite urmrirea ac"iunii dintr8un alt ung)i
de *ilmare sau prezint persona&ul *ilmat #ntr8o alt #ncadratur dect cea #n care *usese #n
cadrul anterior.
'. Fade0 dissolve sau mi3. 5ac #n cazul tieturii0 #n general0 demarca"ia #ntre cadre este o linie
simpl0 care nu este perceput de telespectatori pentru c imaginile se succed cu vitez mare0
#n cazul #n care #ntre cadre avem *ade0 imaginea apare gradual pe ecran C*ade8inD din ecranul
al$ sau negru sau dispare gradual C*ade8outD #n ecranul al$ sau negru. /pari"ia sau dispari"ia
cadrului #n ecran negru se *olosete rar0 *iind utilizat atunci c#nd este anun"at moartea unei
personalit"i #n &urnalele de tiri. 7entru ma&oritatea editorilor de imagine din televiziunile
romneti0 *ade0 dissolve0 9ipe sunt considerate e*ecte video. 5ac cadrul apare lent pe ecran0
se sugereaz o introducere linitit a ac"iunii. Similar0 dispari"ia lent a cadrului semni*ic un
s*rit linitit. Scurgerea timpului ac"iunii #n des*urare pe ecran este adesea sugerat de *ade8
in sau *ade8out. /lipirea a dou cadre prin dissolve sau mi3 presupune dispari"ia cadrului
anerior care Kse dizolv@ #n cadrul ulterior0 rezultnd o K#nln"uire@ a cadrelor Cde unde rezult
denumirea #n lim$a *rancez0 enc)aineeD. ( dizolvare lent a unui cadru #n alt cadru sugereaz
de o$icei di*eren"e de timp i spa"iu #ntre cele dou cadre. .ditarea curent se *ace prin
tieturi0 iar #n anumite cazuri sunt *olosite *ade sau dissolve. .ditarea doar cu dissolve se
poate *ace pentru produc"ii scurte0 de la spoturi de 30 de secunde la reporta&e cu durata de
cteva minute0 avnd ca o$iect prezentarea unui produs0 a unui serviciu0 etc. /$uzul de aceste
e*ecte creeaz un Kaer@ arti*icial produc"iilor respective.
10. Supraimpunerea. Supraimpunerea presupune suprapunerea a dou sau mai multe cadre0
care se deruleaz ast*el #n *a"a telespectatorilor. Supraimpunerea se utilizeaz mai ales #n
transmisiile directe. 5e e3emplu0 la #nceptul unui meci de *ot$al interna"ional se intoneaz
imnurile na"ionale. ;egizorul de emisie0 care realizeaz editarea #n timp real a transmisiei0
poate suprapune imaginea steagurilor na"ionale0 *luturnd #n $taia vntului cu imaginea
*iecrei ec)ipe na"ionale. :n cazul transmisiei directe a unei parade militare0 de asemenea se
pot suprapune dou cadre0 cel cu steagurile i al doilea0 cu trupa mrluind #n ritmul *an*arei
militare. :n cazul unui *ilm artistic0 supraimpunerea este *olosit pentru a crea diverse
meta*ore cinematogra*ice.
11. /lte e*ecte 9ipe. .*ectul de Ktergere@ reprezint o tranzi"ie #ntre dou cadre cu un
anumit e*ect optic. 7oate *i o perdea0 vertical0 de la dreapta la stnga i invers0 #n diagonala
52
ecranului0 de sus #n &os i invers. !ot la acest punct poate *i clasi*icat i e*ectul de pagin0
cadrele urmeaz unul dup altul ca i cnd cineva ar da *oile unei cr"i. Folosirea oricrui tip
de e*ect reprezint o te)nic prin care se atrage aten"ia telespectatorilor c a avut loc o
sc)im$are clar #ntre cadre. 5e multe ori e*ectul de Ktergere@ este *olosit #n cazul
declara"iilor introduse #n reporta&ele de tiri0 atunci cnd declara"ia con"ine *ragmente care au
*ost omise la editare. .*ectul indic c acolo a avut loc o omisiune i se atrage ast*el aten"ia
telespectatorilor asupra *aptului c declara"ia nu este redat integral. :n acelai timp0 utilizarea
e*ectului #n aceast situa"ie evit Ksritura #n cadru@. Fr e*ect0 capul persona&ului ar zvcni
amuzant0 dar nu ar *i deontologic din punct de vedere &urnalistic.
12. 5ivizarea ecranului0 cunoscut i su$ denumirea de split screen. 5ivizarea ecranului #n
dou sau mai multe pr"i permite privitorului s urmreasc mai multe imagini simultan0 de
cele mai multe ori aceeai ac"iune din mai multe ung)iuri sau c)iar ac"iuni di*erite din locuri
di*erite. :n cazul transmisiilor directe sportive0 un ast*el de e*ect se *olosete *recvent pentru a
arta diverse maini a*late pe traseu0 care ocup diverse pozi"ii #n curs. 2neori0 acest e*ect
poate *i interesant pentru telespectatori0 dar e3ist riscul supra#ncrcrii cu in*orma"ie vizual
a ecranului i #n *elul acesta monta&ul poate deveni o$ositor. :n cazul *ilmelor artistice este un
e*ect rar *olosit0 #ns este mai *amiliar pentru editorii *ilmelor documentare.
12. Suprapunerea 8 insert CinsetD. /cest procedeu de editare este #ntlnit mai des #n
trasnmisiile directe dect #n materialele #nregistrate. 7rin acest e*ect se poate suprapune un
cadru normal0 care ocup #ntreg ecranul0 cu un cadru din aceeai ac"iune0 eventual cu alt
#ncadratur0 cu o dimensiune mai mic. 5e e3emplu0 un persona& #ntr8un tal4s)o9 poate *i
#ncadrat la plan mediu0 cadru care ocup #ntreg ecranul0 iar un plan detaliu cu minile
persona&ului care se *rmnt0 poate suprapus #ntr8un col" al ecranului. 5ecizia de suprapunere
a acestor cadre tre$uie s ai$ o puternic motiva"ie editorial. 2n e3emplu cunoscut de
utilizare a$uziv a acestui procedeu= #n cazul unei transmisii directe a unui meci de *ot$al
realizate de !P;0 imaginile meciului respectiv au *ost suprapuse0 #ntr8un col" al ecranului0 cu
imaginea unui alt eveniment0 care se des*ura simultan0 repatrierea osemintelor regelui 1arol
al II8lea. 5ecizia respectiv a *ost mare ga* pro*esional0 telespectatorii *iind nemul"umi"i de
*aptul c nu au putut urmri nici meciul nici transmisiunea politic respectiv.
13. 1adre pentru ilustrare. 1adrele pentru ilustrare sunt cadrele de ar)iv care au *ost *ilmate
i utilizate pentru alte scopuri. 2neori0 ast*el de cadre sunt *olosite pentru a ilustra anumite
pasa&e ale unui reporta& sau documentar0 cu men"ionarea e3pres pe ecran0 de o$icei st#nga sus
8 arhiv.
*anevrarea timpului n cadrul procesului de editare
!impul ac"iunii care se des*oar pe ecran0 o zi0 o sptmn sau c)iar ani de zile0 poate
*i manevrat prin diverse procedee de editare0 #n *unc"ie de necesit"ile regizorale sau de
des*urarea ac"iunii. /numite momente ale ac"iunii pot *i comprimate ca durat0 altele pot *i
prelungite0 #n *un"ie de viziunea regizoral. :ntre telespectatori i realizatori e3ist o
conven"ie0 acceptat de am$ele pr"i0 care permite iluzia realului i care se $azeaz pe
urmtoarele semni*ica"ii ale timpului=
8timpul ac"iunii0 este vor$a de durata real a ac"iunii. 5ac avem un *ilm de rz$oi #n care ni
se povestete despre traversarea /tlanticului a unor nave0 evident c timpul real al ac"iunii
este timpul traversrii.
8timpul proiec"iei *ilmului. /cest aspect se re*er la durata *ilmului din sala de cinema sau din
grila de programe.
53
8timpul perceput de telespectatori sau spectatori. .ste un Ktimp su$iectiv@ i are #n vedere
impresia pe care o au telespectatorii privind durata *ilmului= *ilmele dinamice creeaz iluzia c
au durat mai pu"in dect un *ilm care invit mai mult la re*lec"ie0 dei pot avea o durat egal
de timp.
1. 1omprimarea timpului. !impul ac"iunii poate *i comprimat #ntre secven"e sau scene sau
c)iar #n interiorul scenelor. /ceasta este cea mai *recvent *orm de manipulare a timpului #n
cadrul unei nara"iuni cinematogra*ice i acest lucru se o$"ine utiliznd adecvat0 la editare0
tieturile0 dissolve8urile sau alte tipuri de e*ecte. 5ac #ntr8o produc"ie dramatic de
televiziune0 urcarea unei scri nu este o parte esen"ial a intrigii ac"iunii0 un cadru #l va
prezenta pe persona&ul #n cauz la $aza scrilor0 #ncepnd s urce scrile0 iar cadrul urmtor #l
va prezenta pe acelai persona& intrnd #n camer. 5ac lum ca e3emplu un *ilm documentar0
urmrirea unor *eline zi i noapte0 evident c anumite scene vor *i editate0 comprimnd durata
real ct a durat *ilmarea. 5e alt*el0 o zi poate *i comprimat #n 283 cadre0 ec)ivalentul 6 -
secunde. !impul mai poate *i comprimat prin editarea paralel a dou ac"iuni. ( modalitate
mai su$til de comprimare a timpului se poate realiza dup utilizarea unui plan de ascultare
sau un prim plan cu o declara"ie. 2tilzarea procedeului dissolve sugereaz comprimarea unei
perioade mai mari de timp.
2. !impul simultan. .venimente care se petrec #n di*erite locuri pot *i prezentate cu a&utorul
procedeelor de editare ca i cum s8ar #ntmpla #n acelai moment0 prin editare paralel0 prin
alternarea momentelor ac"iunilor respective sau prin #mpr"irea CsplitareaD ecranului #n dou.
3. ,icarea #ncetinit #n cadru. 7rin acest procedeu ac"iunea prezentat pe ecran de des*oar
cu o vitez cu o vitez mai mic dect viteza cu care a *ost *ilmat ac"iunea Ccadrul este editat
cu o viteze mai mic dect viteza de *ilmare0 cu a&utorul *acilit"ilor o*erite de ec)ipamentele
de editareD. /cest procedeu este utilizat att #n produc"iile artistice de *ic"iune0 ct i #n *ilmele
documentare0 pentru a su$linia urmtoarele aspecte=
L pentru a *ace vizi$il pe ecran o ac"iune care se des*oar cu o vitez prea mare #n
realitate.
L pentru a #ntri0 pentru a su$linia un anumit moment dramatic.
L pentru a *ace *amiliar o ac"iune neo$inuit0 stranie.
L pentru a ampli*ica violen"a unei anumite scene.
L pentru a induce un moment liric0 romantic.
4. ,icarea accelerat #n cadru. .ste un procedeu invers celui prezentat anterior. :n acest caz
cadrul este editat cu o vitez mai mare dect viteza cu care a *ost *ilmat. 7rocedeul este *olosit
#n urmtoarele scopuri=
L pentru a *ace vizi$il o ac"iune care se des*oar #n realitate cu o vitez prea micO
un e3emplu poate *i dat din domeniul *ilmului documentar0 o *loare care este *ilmat #n
timp ce se desc)ide0 la editare0 cadrele vor *i redate cu o vitez mai mare0 e*ectul *iind
*aptul c telespectatorii pot urmri un *enomen spectaculos.
L pentru a *ace o anumit ac"iune amuzantO dac avem o persoan *ilmat cu vitez
normal i o vom reda cu vitez accelerat0 putem o$"ine un e*ect comic0 de e3emplu o
gesticula"ie tipic *ilmelor de comedie.
5. 1adru redat cu vitez invers vitezei de *ilmare. <a editare0 acest procedeu este *olosit
pentru a induce un e*ect comic sau magic sau un e*ect e3plicatoriu. .*ectul comic se poate
o$"ine #n cazul unui persona& care cade0 prin redare cu vitez invers a cadrului0 persona&ul se
ridic. .*ectul magic se poate o$"ine #n cazul unor scene din *ilme tiin"i*ico *antastice0 de
54
e3emplu o $ag)et magic este aruncat i prin editarea cadrului cu vitez invers0 $ag)eta se
#ntoarce #n mna magicianului.
6. ;eluarea cadrului la editare. <a editare0 un cadru poate *i reluat0 adesea cu vitez redus0
pentru a e3plica un anumit *enomen. !ransmisiile sportive0 #n special #n cazul meciurilor de
*ot$al0 se utilizeaz mereu procedeul relurii unor *aze *ier$in"i sau a momentelor golurilor.
-. 1adru K#ng)e"at@ sau still. 2neori0 dintr8un cadru se *i3eaz o *otogram care este *olosit
apoi la editare asemenea unei *otogra*ii. 7rocedeul este *olosit mai ales #n *ilmele
documentare.
%. ;e#ntoarcerea #n timp C*las)$ac4D. ( #ntrerupere a cursului ac"iunii prin #ntoarcerea #n
trecutul persona&elor este marcat #n cursul procesului de editare printr8un dissolve rapid sau
printr8o de*ocusare scurt a camerei video.
'. Saltul #n viitor C*las)*or9ardD. Saltul #n viitor se realizeaz mult mai rar pentru c pu"ine
scenarii se $azeaz pe evenimente care se vor #ntmpla. 5e o$icei0 #n *ilmele poli"iste se
#ncearc descoperirea unor criminali i identi*icarea unor evenimente care au avut loc.
10. .3tensia sau dilatarea timpului ac"iunii. 5ilatarea timpului ac"iunii se realizeaz #n
cursului procesului de editare prin intercalarea unor cadre e3plicative0 prin *ilmarea ac"iunii
din ung)iuri di*erite i editarea #mpreun a scenelor respective0 prin introducerea unor cadre
derulate cu vitez mai mic dect viteza de *ilmare. 5ilatarea timpului ac"iunii introduce un
dramatism suplimentar ac"iunii. 5e e3emplu0 un pilot a*lat pe un supersonic0 #i poate aduce
aminte de diverse scene de dragoste #nainte #nceperii $tliei aeriene0 ceea ce reclam
editorului prelungirea momentelor respective0 peste durata normal a unor as*el de momente.
,omentul #n care un soldat moare #n lupt poate *i deasemenea prelugit prin diverse e*ecte0
pentru a spori dramatismul ac"iunii.
11. !impul incert Ctimpul am$iguuD. /tunci cnd conte3tul ac"iunii unui *ilm artistic reclam
repere temporare mai pu"in precise0 este nevoie ca acest aspect s# *ie sugerat telespectatorilor
i acest lucru se poate *ace simplu prin procedee de editare. 1ele mai utilizate procedee sunt
editarea prin dissolve i supraimpunerea0 rularea a dou cadre suprapuse0 pentru a introduce o
not de mister. Serialul de televiziune !9in 7eac4s a utilizat *recvent aceste procedee. :n
ultimul timp i #n *ilmele documentare0 CdocudrameD a #nceput s *ie create de momente cu
timp am$iguu. 2n e3emplu este serialul di*uzat de >ational +eogra*ic despre *araonii
.giptului. /numite scene sunt reconstituite i editate prin supraimpresionare cu cadre *ilmate
#n teren Cpiramide0 temple0etcD.
12. !impul universal. !ot prin diverse te)nici de editare poate *i sugerat relevan"a universal0
general a unor idei. /cest lucru se poate *ace prin tieturi mai dese Cprin scurtarea duratei
unor cadreD sau prin utilizarea unor #ncadraturi ale persona&elor care nu permit
telespectatorilor s vad ceea ce #ncon&oar persona&ele respective sau s localizeze #n mod
e3pres ac"iunea Ce3emplu= prim8planulD. 5e regul0 relevan"a general a unor idei rezult in
dialogurile persona&elor. 2n e3emplu interesant poate *i dat #n acest caz din serialul de
televiziune K1aracati"a@. <a un moment dat este redat un dialog #ntre dou persona&e0 #ntre
poli"istul &usti"iar i un ma*iot. Filmrile au *ost *cute la prim plan i plan mediu. 7oli"istul
tocmai intrase #n posesia unei liste cu o re"ea de ma*io"i. 7oli"istul #l amenin" pe ma*iot cu
pu$licarea listei #n pres. ,a*iotul #i e3plic c *r dovezi0 pu$licarea listei va *i un
eveniment de pres i nimic mai mult0 iar dup trei zile evenimentul va *i dat uitrii0 iar el nu
55
va *i uitat i va avea de su*erit cu #ntrega *amilie. <ista are valoare doar dac rmne secret.
Sunt relevate ast*el mecanismele universale ale anta&ului i ale anumitor mecanisme sociale0
care sunt invizi$ile0 dar se mani*est cu trie #n momente8c)eie. Finalul dialogului este o
succesiune de prim8planuri0 *r legtur cu locul #n care se des*oar ac"iunea. :ncreztor #n
dreptate0 poli"istul pu$lic lista ma*io"ilor. 5up trei zile lista este uitat de mass8media0 care
promoveaz alte evenimente0 iar poli"istul este destituit. .ste o realitate pe care o putem
identi*ica rapid #n peisa&ul mediatic romnesc. 2n eveniment de amploare este scos de pe
agenda media de alt eveniment0 care surprinztor0 apare la timp pentru a *ace s dispar din
relatri un eveniment stn&enitor pentru esta$lis)ment.
0ditarea i utilizarea sunetului
Sunetul este o component esen"ial a unei produc"ii audiovizuale. 1ele mai simple
metode de captare a sunetului sunt *olosite #n cazul reporta&elor de tiri. 7entru aceste
produc"ii este *oarte important sunetul de am$ian"0 sunetul natural0 c)iar cu anumite
imper*ec"iuni generate de mediul #n care se *ace *ilmarea0 ceea ce sugereaz telespectatorilor
autenticitate. 5eclara"iile sunt #nregistrate cu micro*oane unidirec"ionale0 direct cu camera
video sau utiliznd mi3ere porta$ile0 ceea ce permite o ec)ili$rare mai $un a sunetului direct
cu sunetul de am$ian". 7entru *ilmele documentare i mai ales pentru produc"iile artistice de
televiziune sau concertele #n aer li$er0 #nregistrarea i prelucrarea sunetului devin o activitate
*oarte comple3.
1. Sunetul direct. Sunetul direct sau live sound con*er #nregistrrii autenticitae0 spontaneitate0
c)iar dac din punct de vedere acustic nu este per*ect. /tunci cnd se realizeaz editarea0
*iecare cadru este #nso"it de sunetul care e3ista #n momentul *ilmrii. /s*el0 sunetul direct0 de
am$ian" al reporta&elor de tiri0 este *ragmentat #n *unc"ie de durata cadrelor.
2. Sunetul de studio. Sunetul #nregistrat #n studio este de calitate0 sunt eliminate zgomotele de
*ond sau sunetele nedorite. 2neori sunetul de studio este mi3at cu sunetul de am$ian" sau cu
ilustra"ia muzical.
3. Sunetul selectiv. ,i3erele utilizate pentru prelucrarea sunetului permit Kre"inerea@ unor
sunete nedorite i ampli*icarea altora. /ceste prelucrri au drept scop uneori recunoaterea
mai uoar a unor cadre sau crearea unei anumite atmos*ere0 inducerea telespectatorilor o
stare emo"ional. :n cazul *ilmelor de ac"iune0 sunetul selectiv0 care poate *i e3tras dintr8o
colec"ie de sunete speci*ice Csunetul vntului0 sunetul unor e3plozii0 sunetul loviturilor #n
cazul unor $ti0 etc.D. 5e e3emplu0 #n cazul unui *ilm de ac"iune0 dac avem o scen #n care
un persona& ascuns #n &ungl ascult zgomotul unui elicopter care vine s8l eli$ereze0 acel
zgomot poate *i ampli*icat ast*el #nct telespectatorii s Ksimt@ dramatismul ateptrii.
2neori0 sunetul selectiv este *olosit pentru a permite telespectatorilor s identi*ice un anumit
persona& care nu este vizi$il sau s8a mani*estat pn #n acel moment al ac"iunii doar prin
anumite sunete Csau convor$iri tele*oniceD.
4. Sunetul ecou. 2neori este nevoie pentru telespectatori de crearea i #n planul sunetului a
impresiei de distan" #ntre persona&e0 aa cum sunt ele vzute #n imagine. /cest truc se
realizeaz prin crearea unui Kecou@ sunetului0 cu a&utorul mi3erului. 1ei care se ocup de
rela"ii pu$lice i lucreaz #n departamente de comunicare tre$uie s tie c #n cazul unei
dez$ateri #n studio cu mai mul"i invita"i0 pozi"ionarea micro*oanelor poate privilegia anumi"i
invita"i.
56
5. Poice over. !ermenul de*inete vocea care citete te3tul unui documentar0 al unui reporta&
de tiri sau c)iar o voce din o** Cdin e3teriorrul ac"iuniiD #n cazul unui *ilm artistic. :n cazul
reporta&elor de tiri vocea care citete te3tul reporta&ului este #n mod normal vocea
reporterului. 5up apari"ia televiziunii comerciale 7;( !P0 s8a introdus practica unei voci
Kautorizate@0 reporterul nemaicitindu8i singuri te3tul. 7ractica s8a rspndit rapid dup 1''-0
am putea spune K*or"at@0 #n toate televiziunile. .3plica"ia pu$lic a *ost necesitatea utilizrii
unor voci Kradio*onice@0 practica voice8overului *iind prezentat ca o modalitate modern de a
*ace televiziune. :n realitate0 prin aceast practic s8a introdus un control total asupra
in*orma"iei0 asupra modului de redactare a reporta&elor0 permi"nd introducerea #n te3t a unor
in*orma"ii suplimentare despre evenimentele din teren0 unele care nu *useser o$servate de
reporter0 pentru c pur i simplu evenimenele citate suplimentar nu avuseser loc. 5ac
urmrim &urnalele de tiri ale televiziunilor mari din .uropa i din S2/ C!F 10 France 20 ;/I
2>(0 U5F0 1>>0 Fo3 >e9s0 /610 16S0 >61D vom o$serva cu surprindere c sistemul
voice8overului nu #l #ntlnim acolo. :n S2/0 sistemul voice8over #n programele de tiri este
specic televiziunilor locale0 unde reporterul realizeaz mai multe activit"i editoriale. ,ai rar0
utilizarea voice8over8ului poate *i #ntlnit i #n *ilmele artistice. :n acest caz0 voice8over8ul
poate *i c)iar unul dintre persona&e. .vident c celelalte persona&e nu aud comentariul
respectiv. 5e e3emplu0 #n cazul unui *ilm0 voice8overul poate *i spiritul unui persona& decedat
sau naratorul *ilmului. :n general0 voice8over8ul este *olosit #n urmtoarele situa"ii=
L pentru a aduce in*orma"ii suplimentare care nu sunt evidente din derularea imaginilor.
L pentru a comenta imaginile pentru pu$lic dintr8o anumit perspectiv.
L pentru a Klega@ anumite pr"i ale programului. <a acest punct putem da ca e3emplu
modul de realizare a programelor de tiri di*uzate de canalul de televiziune specializat
#n tiri0 ;ealitatea !P.
1omentariul documentarelor tre$uie citite cu ton moderat0 pentru a con*eri credi$ilitate
produc"iei respective.
6. .*ecte sonore. 7roduc"iile de *ic"iune necesit de cele mai multe ori e*ecte sonore care s
sus"in des*urarea ac"iunii. 5e e3emplu0 K;z$oiul stelelor@ a utilizat att e*ecte video ct i
e*ecte sonore care au creat deliciul telespectatorilor de8a lungul timpului.
-. ,uzica. !emele muzicale *olosite tre$uie s *ie #n concordan" cu con"inutul imaginilor.
Ilustra"ia muzical se poate *ace dup ce materialul este editat. .ditarea se poate *ace i #n alt
mod0 #nregistrnd mai #nti imaginile i editnd cadrele #n ritmul muzicii. ;itmul muzicii
impune ritmul tieturilor. /numite *raze muzicale pot *i *olosite repetat ca elemente de
legtur #ntre cadre0 scene i secven"e. ,uzica utlizat pentru ilustra"ia muzical poate *i
special compus pentru produc"ia respectiv sau poate *i muzic instrumental0 cu teme i
ritmuri speci*ice pentru diverse situa"ii. 5e e3emplu0 dac avem de ilustrat un documentar
despre industria I!0 putem gsi ca ilustra"ie muzic produs de sintetizatoare.
%. <initea. 2neori0 cerin"ele nara"iunii cinematogra*ice impun *olosirea unor pauze sonore.
/lternarea momentelor de dialog i tcere #n cazul discu"iei #ntre dou persona&e poate genera
semni*ica"ii speciale pentru telespectatori. !cerea poate intensi*ica dialogul interior i aten"ia
telespectatorilor sau poate crea c)iar disocierea de realitate pentru scurt timp a acestora0 dac
emo"iile induse sunt *oarte mari.
Stiluri narative
1. !ratamentul su$iectiv. ;ela"ia #ntre telespectator i camera video este considerat
Ksu$iectiv@0 atunci cnd telespectatorul este tratat ca un participant0 adic i se adreseaz
5-
direct sau camera imit micrile persona&ului *ilmat. :n unele cazuri0 telespectatorul vede prin
oc)iul camerei de luat vederi visele persona&ului *ilmat sau rememorarea unor e3perien"e
traumatizante ale acestuia. ,icrile camerei de luat vederi0 inclusiv trans*ocrile0 sunt
considerate ca apar"innd stilului narativ su$iectiv.
2. !ratamentul o$iectiv. 2tilizarea camerei de luat vederi intr8o perspectiv o$iectiv0 implic
tratarea telespectatorului din pozi"ia de o$servator0 e3terior evenimentelor *ilmate0 spre
deose$ire de stilul su$iectiv0 care8l trateaz pe telespectator ca participant la evenimente.
3. .ditarea paralel i editarea #ncruciat. !ipurile acestea de editare sunt speci*ice *ilmelor
artistice i sunt rar utilizate pentru editarea emisiunilor de televiziune.
4. K.ditarea invizi$il@. .ste vor$a desigur de o meta*or0 pentru c se re*er la un stil de
editare dezvoltat de realizatorii de *ilme de la BollE9ood=ma&oritaea *ilmelor sunt editate #n
acest stil. :n ce const aceast te)nicQ !ieturile urmresc s nu o$struc"ioneze cursul
nara"iunii0cu e3cep"ia cadrelor dramatice. !e)nica tieturii invizi$ile creaz impresia c
tietura este #ntotdeauna cerut i motivat de cursul evenimentelor. 7ovestea i persona&ele
sale sunt centrul aten"iei. :n realitate0 camera *ilmeaz ast*el #nct povestea s *ie narat #ntr8
un anumit *el dorit de regizor. ;ezultatul este impresia de Krealism@ pe care succesiunea
cadrelor o transmite telespectatorilor.
5. ,onta&ul #n contrast Cmise8en8sceneD.
6. 7rezen"a #n *a"a camerei de luat vederi. ( persoan care vor$ete direct camerei de luat
vederi are0 #n raport cu telespectatorii0 o pozi"ie de autoritate recunoscut de ctre acetia. /
vor$i #n *a"a camerei de luat vederi nu este uzual #n televiziune. 1ei care vor$esc uzual privind
direct #n camera de luat vederi sunt prezentatorii diverselor emisiuni0 reporterii #n secven"e
Kstand8up@0 prezentatorii meteo i ocazional0 politicienii0 persoanele pu$lice. /cetia din urm
vor$esc privind direct #n camera video atunci cnd reporterul nu e3ist i vor$esc direct cu
prezentatorul din studio. (amenii se adreseaz pu$licului avnd ca intermediar
intervievatorul0 care poate *i un reporter pe teren0 un prezentator de emisiuni sau un moderator
de tal48s)o9. :n cadrul studiilor privind analiza de con"inut a operelor audiovizuale0 1)arles
(sgood a dezvoltat metoda di*eren"ialului semantic
5-
. 7rin aceast metod0 6aggaleE i 5u4
au testat dac e3ist vreo di*eren" #n ceea ce privete #n"elesurile pe care le transmite un
prezentator de televiziune care se adreseaz direct camerei i un prezentator care este
pozi"ionat din pro*il trei s*erturi
5%
. .3perimentl s8a des*urat ast*el= acelai prezentator a *ost
*ilmat cu dou camere video0 plasate la aceeai distan"0 una a *ost pozi"ionat *rontal0 prim
plan0 iar cealalt a *ilmat din pro*il trei s*erturi. 5i*eren"a dintre cele dou *ilmri a *ost dat
de ung)iurile di*erite ale camerei video #n raport cu persona&ul *ilmat. 1oncluzia
e3perimentului a *ost urmtoarea=@su$iec"ii au artat c un prezentator *ilmat din pro*il trei
s*erturi pare mai sincer0 mai direct0 mai e3pert0 i0 #n general0 prezint un set de valori
conotate mai $ine. /cest lucru ar putea s par surprinztor0 pentru c0 #n codurile din via"a
real0 a8"i privi #n *a" interlocutorul este0 de o$icei0 un gest care indic sinceritate0 desc)idere0
competen"0 .a.m.d. 1oncluzia studiului ne poate duce spre o distinc"ie interesant0 dintre
codurile din via"a real i codurile televiziunii este o distinc"ie care tre$uie accentuat0
deoarece aparenta similaritate a televiziunii cu via"a real ar putea duce prea uor la credin"a
eronat c aceste coduri ar *i aceleai. :ns #n televiziune nu sunt aceleai coduri ca #n via"a
Fis4e Wo)n0 .ntroducere Cn tiinele comunicrii,pag.!L, .ditura 7olirom0 Iai0 2003
id, pag.!A
5%
real= nu reac"ionm #n acelai *el la un eveniment televizat cum am reac"iona la un eveniment
e3perimentat pe viu@.
-. !onul programului. Starea su*leteasc dominant0 atmos*era unui program de televiziune
poate *i ironic0 comic0 romantic0 etc. 5e e3emplu atmos*era general din cadrul emisiunii
KSurprize0 surprize@ este o atmos*er cald0 uneori romantic0 cu accente de solidaritate
social. :n emisiunea lui Florin 1linescu0 tonul general al emisiunii era dominant ironic0
amintind de programele lui WaE <eno. /lte programe0 cum a *ost 5uminica #n *amilie avea o
atmos*er general rela3at0 de parteneriat #ntre moderator i participan"ii la emisiune.
>lte reguli1 sugestii i s8aturi privind 8ilmarea1 editarea i compoziia
cadrului
0ditarea Bmonta#ulC
1nd apare Cprin *adeD un generic la #nceputul programului nu admite"i ca imaginea s
precead sunetulO ini"ia"i8le pe am$ele deodat dac este posi$il i dac nu0 aran&a"i ca sunetul
s precead imaginea mcar cu o *rac"iune mic de timp. .3plicarea riguroas a regulii de mai
sus este di*icil dar prin aceasta ea nu devine mai pu"in vala$il. .sen"a e3plica"iei este de
natur *iziologic. In*orma"ia *urnizat de oc)i este mai $ogat i are nevoie de ceva mai mult
timp ca s *ie procesat0 dect in*orma"ia *urnizat de urec)e. ( imagine *r sunet este *r
via" i neplcutO sunetul *r imagine este tolera$il i uneori plcut.
1 a. !ransmiterea genericelor tre$uie *cut cu o vitez care s permit citirea lor comod cu
o voce tare. +enericele care se succed prea #ncet pot *i plictisitoare. +enericele care se succed
prea repede sunt enervanteO ele nu pot *i citite i pot produce trena& Ccozi #n urma pr"ilor #n
micare0 pe o imagine de televiziuneD0 ceea ce este neplcut. Piteza corect este aceea la care
genericele pot *i citite cu voce tare.
1 $. >u men"ine"i niciodat pe ecran un generic care anun" un lucru0 att timp ct o voce
spune altceva. Sunetul i imaginea tre$uie s *ie mereu parteneri i niciodat rivali. (c)iul i
urec)ea nu pot percepe simultan dou in*orma"ii contradictorii. 1nd oc)iul i urec)ea intr #n
con*lict0 ctig oc)iul. 5in acest motiv tre$uie acordat o gri& deose$it scrierii0 redactrii i
sincronizrii comentariului. 1omentatorul va tre$ui s vor$easc #ntotdeauna despre ceea ce
este pe ecran sau despre ceea ce urmeaz s apar. <sa"i sunetul i imaginea s lucreze
#ntotdeauna #n armonie. 1uvintele necesit timp pentru a *i #n"elese i de aceea este deseori
necesar ca ele s precead cu pu"in imaginea0 care va *i #n"eleas mai uor din moment ce tim
de&a ce urmeaz s vedem. 1nd interesul vizual pentru o imagine a *ost epuizat0
telespectatorul poate acorda aten"ie cuvintelor ce8l pregtesc pentru imaginea urmtoare.
1 c. 1nd suprapune"i un generic cu o imagine0 ca *undal0 asigura"i8v c literele i *undalul
sunt #n tonuri contrastante. 7oate regula pare prea evident pentru a *i su$liniat dar totui ea
este negli&at deseori. Folosi"i literele luminoase Cal$eD pe un *undal negru i litere
#ntunecoase CnegreD pe un *undal luminos0 pentru c #n caz contrar ele nu sunt vizi$ile. .vita"i
un *undal care este &umtate luminos0 &umtate #ntunecos0 pentru c literele #ntunecoase sunt
limitate de partea #ntunecoas. 7entru genericele #n micare asemenea *undaluri mi3te vor *i
#ntotdeauna neindicate.
2. !ia"i0 mi3a"i0 atenua"i Ccut0 dissolveD #ntotdeauna #n ritmul muzicii i nu #n contratimp.
,otivele ce au dus la sta$ilirea regulii sunt eviden"iateO totui0 deseori0 ea nu este respectat.
5'
.ste deose$it de neplcut s se opereze asupra imaginii #n contratimp cu muzica0 punctua"ia
uneia coinciznd cu a celeilalte. :n cazul muzicii ritmate0 tietura tre$uie s intervin
invaria$il la s*ritul *razei muzicale. <a orice alt muzic0 tietura va coincide cu punctua"ia
acesteia. .ste la latitudinea regizorului s conduc ac"iunea0 ast*el #nct locul potrivit pentru
tierea muzicii s *ie acelai cu locul corect penru plasarea tieturii pe imagine.
3. /tenua"i C*ila"iD C*ade outD muzica numai la s*ritul unei *raze muzicale0 niciodat la
mi&locul ei. .ste e3trem de suprtoare pentru urec)e #ncetarea muzicii #nainte de s*ritul
*razei muzicale. 1ele dou e3cep"ii de la regul sunt= C1D cazul #n care muzica este atenuat
C*ilatD att de lent i de gradat0 #n timpul unui dialog sau al unui sunet0 #nct nu ne dm seama
de aceastaO C2D #n cazul #n care muzica este imediat #nlocuit de un sunet mai puternic.
4. .vita"i un mi3a& Cdissolve0 mi3D urt rapid i *r motiv. /ccepta"i dou secunde ca interval
minim i trei secunde ca interval standard pentru realizarea mi3a&ului. 1u e3cep"ia trecerilor
de la un generic la altul0 mi3a&ul rapid are prea pu"in utilizare. .l nu va indica o sritur #n
timp0 care este de *apt singura ra"iune de a *i a oricrui mi3a& i0 e*ectuat rapid0 mi3a&ul va
arta mai curnd ca o tietur incorect e3ecutat.
5. >u tia"i CcutD niciodat #ntre camere #n micare0 mai ales #ntre camere ce panorameaz0 sau
#ntre o camer #n micare i una static. ( tietur #ntre camerele video #n micare are un e*ect
e3trem de neplcut asupra oc)iului. Imaginea este urt0 dezagrea$il i *ace tietura *oarte
vizi$il. ( e3cep"ie permis se re*er la situa"ia a dou camere ce panorameaz #ntre aceeai
direc"ie i cu aceeai vitez. Pa *i permis de e3emplu0 s trecem prin tietur de la un
panoramic al unei maini #n mers0 la o imagine similar a unei alte maini ce se deplaseaz cu
aceeai vitez #n aceeai direc"ie. /lt e3emplu permis= tietur de pe o imagine plan deprtat
a unei maini #n mers0 pe o imagine plan apropiat a aceleiai maini. /ici de *apt0 camera
nu panorameaz. .a panorameaz numai *a" de *undal0 care nu este important i a$ia vizi$il0
i este sta"ionar *a" de o$iectul ce ne intereseaz0 maina. ( alt e3cep"ie posi$il este
tietura pe o camer ce panorameaz #ntr8o ac"iune care deruleaz rapid. .*ectul tinde s
accelereze ritmul i s mreasc emo"ia. (ricum0 aceast manevr se va *ace numai #n
circumstan"ele speciale enumerate. >u este permis #ns niciodat0 su$ nici un motiv0 s se
e*ectueze o tietur de pe o camer ce panorameaz. /ceast manevr este inadimisi$il0 cu
e3cep"iile prezentate mai sus.
6. >u mi3a"i Cdissolve0 mi3D #ntre camere #n micare0 #n special #ntre camere ce panorameaz0
de la o camer sta"ionar la una #n micare sau invers. ,i3a&ul #ntre camer #n micare produce
un e*ect *oarte urtO el tinde s creeze telespectatorului o uoar senza"ie de ame"eal. 1u ct
micarea este mai rapid0 cu att el se simte mai ru. .3cep"ia admis pentru tiere este
vala$il i #n cazul mi3a&ului Cvezi regula 5 de mai susD. ,i3a&ul este permis cnd am$ele
camere sunt #n micare0 #n aceeai direc"ie i cu aceeai vitez0 constant. /ceasta este o
regul des #nclcat #n producerea *ilmelor. .cranul de cinema mai mare dect cel al
televizorului pare a *ace manevra mai pu"in neplcutO panoramarea sau orice alt micare este
#ntotdeauna destul de #nceat i *oarte sta$il0 lucru di*icil de realizat #n agita"ia
transmisiunilor !P ?pe viu@. !otui0 mul"i realizatori socotesc #nc aceast manevr ca *iind
du$ioas din punct de vedere artistic. 1u toate c se men"ine prerea c un mi3a& poate avea
loc numai #ntre camerele statice0 el tre$uie s *ie animat0 adic s ai$ micare. .ste #ns
oricum mai $ine s realizm acest e*ect deplasnd su$iectul0 #n loc s deplasm camera.
-. !ia"i CcutD #ntotdeauna cnd este posi$il #n timpul micrii #n cadruO tia"i cnd su$iectul
este #n curs de a se aeza0 de a se ridica0 de a se #ntoarce i nu cnd su$iectul este static. 1)iar
60
#n prim plan pre*era"i pentru tietur un moment cnd capul unei persoane este #n micare.
5eplasarea su$iectului *ace tietura mai pu"in vizi$il0 c)iar invizi$il. !ieturile #ntre
su$iecte statice tind s *ie #ntotdeauna mai inoportune dect acelea #ntre su$iecte #n micare.
Sincronizarea dintre micare i tietur este #ntotdeauna important. :n mod *recvent pot *i
vzute tieturi *cute *ie prea devreme0 c)iar #nainte ca micarea s *i #nceput0 sau prea
trziu0imediat ce micarea s8a terminat. :n am$ele cazuri se va vedea numai o parte din
micare. 5ac0 de e3emplu0 ave"i #ntr8un plan deprtat o persoan care merge spre un scaun ca
s se aeze i vre"i s tia"i aceast imagine trecnd la un prim8plan0 o ve"i vedea #ncepnd s
se aeze0 #n cadrul larg0 i apoi terminnd micarea de a se aeza #n prim plan. Similar0 la
ridicarea de pe scaun0 o ve"i vedea #ncepnd s se ridice #n prim plan i apoi s*rind
micarea #n planul mai deprtat. >u tre$uie s tia"i pe planul deprtat #nainte de ridicarea
persoanei0 cnd am$ele camere sunt statice. >u tre$uie panoramat cnd ea se aeaz sau se
scoal. 5ac se e3ecut aceast manevr #nseamn c se va tia pe o panoramare i va rezulta
ceva urt pentru oc)i. ( alt motivare pentru o tietur este uneori ?7;IPI;./@. 2n om
st la $irou. /uzim un ?clic@0 el ridic privirea. !iem pe ceea ce vede omul o persoan care
intr #n camer. 1u toate c #n acest caz micarea este *oarte mic0 poate doar o micare a
oc)ilor 0 tietura este motivat0 ea satis*ace e3act instinctul nostru i deci nici nu deran&eaz.
1nd #n secven"e de dialog0 de e3emplu0 micarea nu poate *i elementul cel mai important sau
unde nu e3ist de *apt micare0 se poate tia din motive pur artistice0 pentru a *avoriza
vor$itorul sau pentru a urmri o reac"ie sau0 ateptarea unei reac"ii. (ricum0dac pute"i tia pe
o micare sau pe o ?7;IPI;.@0 *ace"i8o deorece tietura va deveni pu"in vizi$il.
-a. 1nd tia"i pe dialog nu o *ace"i #n mod rigid numai la s*rit de *raz.
1nd tia"i pe ac"iune0 este vala$il regula potrivit creia tietura este oricnd posi$il pe
micare. 1nd tia"i pe dialog0 ca de e3emplu #ntre cadre asemenea sau #ntre cadre peste umr
Cvezi glosarul de termeniD0 nu e3ist micare sau prea pu"in i tre$uie gsit o alt regul
pentru momentul tieturii. /ceasta este *oarte simplu *avoriza"i mereu su$iectul mai
important. :n general0 persoana care vor$ete este cea mai important dar sunt i e3cep"ii.
2neori0 vor$itorul este mai pu"in important dect reac"ia produs altora de cele spuse de el. :n
acest caz0 *olosi"i camere care *avorizeaz persoane ce ascult. ;elativ la viteza de tiere
e3ist o lim&it tolerat de oc)i. 5e aceea0 nu tia"i mereu pentru *iecare sila$ spus de
cineva. 1teva cuvinte rostite #na*ara camerei nu conteaz. Favorizeaz #ntotdeauna persoana
care de"ine in*orma"iile cele mai $ogate0 indi*erent dac acestea se comunic prin vor$e sau
e3presia *e"ei.
%. >u sc)im$a"i niciodat imaginea prin tietur0 mi3are0 panoramare sau urmrire *r o
motivare din partea ac"iunii sau muzicii #nso"itoare.
(rice sc)im$are a imaginii tinde s distrag aten"ia telespectatorului de la su$iect0
#ndeprtndu8i8o spre te)nica produc"iei. 5e aceea0 nu sc)im$a"i cadrul niciodat pn ce
imaginea urmtoare nu spune ceva di*erit0 ceva ce tre$uie spus0 ceva ce su$linniaz o
pro$lem sau a&ut la #n"elegerea su$iectului de ctre telespectatori. >u sc)im$a"i niciodat
imaginea de dragul sc)im$riiO practica aceasta este un mod prea simplu de a distra. %a. S nu
v imagina"i c un mi3a& e*ectuat contrar regulilor va masca o tietur incorect.
.ste o eroare s crede"i c o tietur prost plasat i suprtoare va *i mascat prin mi3a&. /$ia
aceasta #nseamn eroare dup eroare. 5ac tietura este nereuit0 mi3a&ul va *i i mai
necorespunztor. 5ac ac"iunea este continu #n timp0 se va recurge la tietur. 5ac se
produce vreo sc)im$are #ntr8o scen #n care tre$uie indicat o sritur #n timp0 atunci tre$uie
61
mi3at. :n rest0 regulile sunt rigide. 5ac tietura iese prost0 modi*ica"i pozi"ia camerei sau
momentul de tiere. >u v imagina"i c tietura poate *i oricum pentru a *i remarcat. ;e"ine"i
c un mi3a& nereuit este mult mai evident dect o tietur. .cranul apare *r via"0 mn&it i
acesta0 #n cazul mi3a&ului0 pentru mai mult timp. !ietura este instantanee i0 dac este plasat
la locul potrivit0 nici nu se o$serv. S8a sus"inut c mi3a&ul este mai ?plcut@ Cmai ?neted@D0
dac este *cut pe un *ond muzical0 dar aceasta este o alt eroare. ,i3a&ul nu este niciodat
neted0 spre deose$ire de tietur0 care0 dac respect regulile i este corect sincronizat0 este
de *apt invizi$il0 i0 de aceea0 a$solut neted. .3ist i o alt coal de gndire0 ciudat #n
aparen"0 care pare a sus"ine c0 #ntr8un *el0 tietura este ireveren"ioas iar mi3a&ul denot
respect i deci imediat ce camerele sunt instalate pentru a transmite un concert sim*onic0 de
e3emplu0 tietura tre$uie evitat i *olosit mi3a&ul cu singurul scop de a trece de la o camer la
alta. ;ezultatul unei ast*el de manevre este c cea mai mare parte a materialului re*eritor la
concert va *i stricat. :nceptorii tre$uie s tie c nici tietura0 nici mi3a&ul nu sunt superioare
moral unul altuia. Fiecare #i are locul suO *iecare are o alt semni*ica"ie. Incorecta
#ntre$ui"are a mi3a&ului dezorienteaz spectatorul0 distrugnd semni*ica"ia i utilitatea
e*ectului. /ceasta este totodat indiciul unui mod de lucru nepro*esional.
%$. 1u toate c esen"a televiziunii este prim planul0 nu negli&a"i valoarea planului deprtat.
1u toate c impactul produs de prim8plan este mai mare dect acela produs de orice alt *el de
cadru0 prea mult prim8planul poate *i plicticos i suprtor. (c)iul are nevoie de o sc)im$are0
de pu"in pauz de prim8planuri i de aceea interven"ia unui plan deprtat *ace primplanul
urmtor mai e*icace i $inevenit. ,ai mult0 *r planuri deprtate ClargiD telespectatorul pierde
sim"ul de orientare sau rela"ia *izic dintre persoanele prezente pe ecran. .ste util ca0 din cnd
#n cnd0 s amintim telespectatorului toate acestea0 prin intermediul unui plan deprtat.
Ieirile0 intrrile i deplasrile mari sunt motive $une pentru a e*ectua o tietur pe un plan
deprtat ClargD.
%c. 5a"i un plan general0 imediat dup trecerea la o scen nou.
/ceasta in*ormeaz telespectatorul asupra locului #n care se a*l i asupra #n*"irii acestuia.
7lanul general #i d ?geogra*ia@ locului.
%d. 5a"i prim plan imediat dup intrarea unui persona& nou0 de orice importan"0 sau dup
reintrarea unui persona& care a lipsit un timp.
1nd intr un nou persona&0 instinctiv telespectatorul dorete s8l vad. Satis*ace"i8i aceast
dorin". :n cazul reintrrii unui persona&0 care a lipsit un timp0 prim planul este util pentru a8i
aminti telespectatorului de el i totodat0 ca o msur de a prevedea pentru cazul #n care
persona&ul respectiv nu a *ost recunoscut #n planul #ndeprtat.
%e. :ncerca"i s evita"i tietur de pe un plan *oarte larg CdeprtatD al cuiva pe un prim plan
*oarte apropiat0 al aceleiai persoane.
.*ectul este urt i prim planul pare a se repezi la tine. !ietura se va *ace *ie la un plan
mediu0 *ie aduce"i su$iectul #ntr8un prim plan al planului deprtat. :nainte de a tia pe prim
plan0 #n cazul #n care nu se urmrete0 #n mod voit0 crearea unui oc. >u tia"i niciodat pe
imagine cuiva0 #nainte ca acesta s *i *ost recunoscut.
62
Atilizarea o!iectivelor camerei de luat vederi
1. .vita"i s panorama"i sau s urmri"i cu un o$iectiv cu ung)i orizontal mai mare de 40 de
grade.
($iectivele cu ung)i de desc)idere *oarte mare tind s cur$eze att liniile drepte orizontale ct
i pe cele verticale. /cest e*ect nu este prea vizi$il atta timp ct camera este static dar apare
imediat ce se deplaseaz deoarece0 gradul de cur$are variaz di*erit #n diverse pr"i ale
imaginii0 avnd ca rezultat *aptul c liniile drepte par a se #ndoi i a se rsuci. 2n e*ect *oarte
urt0 neplcut oc)iului.
2. >u urmri"i su$iectul pentru a8l introduce sau a8l scoate din cadru0 cu un o$iectiv cu ung)i
orizontal mai mic de 20.
,otivele ce duc la acestea sunt= C1D 7entru c ung)iul este #ngust0 urmrirea va *i *oarte pu"in
evident deoarece traiectoria este *oarte lungO C2D 7entru c distan"a de la camer la su$iect
este *oarte mare0 orice mic micare a camerei va *i *oarte mult mrit pe imagine. Imagina"i8
v o mn ce "ine o undi" lung. ( micare *oarte mic a minii va duce la o micare de
amplitudine *oarte mare a vr*ului undi"ei. <a *el se #ntmpl cu o$iectivele cu ung)i micO cea
mai mic zdruncinare a camerei0 datorit unei asperit"i a podelei0 va duce la o mare sritur a
imaginii. .ste adevrat c *olosind un o$iectiv cu ung)i orizontal de 15 grade0 #n cazul unei
podele per*ecte i al unui operator de camer *oarte $un0 se poate #ncerca o uoar trre a
camerei0 dar mai $ine evita"i manevra.
3. >u utiliza"i prea mult trans*ocatorul C?Uoom@D pentru a su$stitui o urmrire e*ectiv.
1onsidera"i trans*ocatorul mai mult ca pe o rulet cu un numr in*init de o$iectivem ca pe o
unealt ce se manevreaz #n a*ara emisiei cu e3cep"ia cazului #n care urmri"i anumite
e*ecte. 5ac trans*ocatorul se utilizeaz #n emisie0 el va sa senza"ia unui e*ect straniu0
nenatural. .l produce apropierea sau deprtarea orizontului i a distan"ei medii0 cu aceeai
vitez cu a prim planului0 ceea ce nu se #ntmpl la o urmrire cu camera propriu8zis sau cu
oc)iul li$er. .ste adevrat c #n timpul transmiterii unor evenimente sportive sau a altor
evenimente nerepeta$ile0 e3igen"ele legate de aceste circumstan"e speciale pot *ace necesar
#ntre$uin"area trans*ocatorului #n acest *el dar0 e*ectul este #ntotdeauna neplcut i va *i evitat
dac este posi$il. ( uoar ?deplasare@ a camerei0 cu trans*ocatorul0 nu va *i pro$a$il
o$servat0 dar o ?deplasare@ rapid este detesta$il0 dac nu cumva s8a apelat la acest truc
pentru a realiza un e*ect nenatural0 dramatic0 asemenea trans*ocrii pe un prim plan al unei
*e"e sc)imonosite. 1u e3cep"ia acestui *el de tratamente oc0 regula este ?"ine"i trans*ocatorul
linitit@.
4. 1nd apare necesitatea de a *ilma de la mare distan" un plan destul de apropiat al unei
persoane0 utiliznd un o$iectiv cu ung)i #ngust0 camera va tre$ui s *ie ct de mult posi$il0 la
acelai nivel cu su$iectul. particularitate important a o$iectivelor cu ung)i #ngust este e*ectul
de reducere a dimensiunilor. /ceste o$iective aduc *undalul aproape de prim plan. 2n plan
apropiat realizat cu un o$iectiv cu ung)i #ngust al unui om stnd la trei metri de un zid #l
va *ace s apar ca
stnd lipit de zid. :n mod similar0 un cadru al unui om #nalt0 luat de sus0 cu un o$iectiv cu
ung)i #ngust0 #l va prezenta ca pe un pitic cu picioare *oarte scurte. /ceast greeal apare
uneori la cadrarea #n slile de teatru0 cnd camera este plasat la $alconul I sau la galerie i la
meciuri de cric4et0 cnd camera este urcat deseori pe acoperiul pavilionului.
63
5. 1nd se *olosete un o$iectiv cu ung)i *oarte larg0 mai mare de 40 de grade0 dac se dorete
o perspectiv natural0 camera va tre$ui s stea #n pozi"ie a$solut orizontal.
($iectivele cu ung)i *oarte larg distrug perspectiva. /cest e*ect nu este suprtor att timp ct
camera este #n pozi"ie orizontal. :n momentul #n care ea panorameaz pe vertical CtiltedD cu
cteva grade0 distorsiunea este *oarte suprtoare. 5ac este necesar s realiza"i un plan
deprtat al unei scene de teatru0 este mai $ine s plasa"i camera la $alconul I dect la galerie i
#nc mai $ine este s o plasa"i #n stalul I. 1orela"i acestea cu regula 1. /vnd o$iective cu
ung)i *oarte larg0 camera va tre$ui s *ie orizontal i sta"ionar.
6. 7entru toate cadrele0 cu e3cep"ia prim planurilor individuale i a imaginilor #n care
o$iectele de interese sunt #n acelai plan0 utiliza"i un o$iectiv cu ung)i orizontal mai mare de
20 de grade.
($iectivele cu ung)i mai #ngust de*ormeaz0 dimensioneaz perspectiva i deci0 implicit0
dimensiunile relative #n adncime ale o$iectelor. .3cep"ia posi$il i permis de la aceast
regul apare la cadrarea ?peste umr@ un prim plan al lui / peste umrul lui 6. /ci0 un
o$iectiv cu un ung)i de 15 va avea tendin"a s lmureasc0 s mresc *a"a lui /0 care este mai
important dect spatele capului lui 60 care nu este important. 1u toate c din punct de vedere
optic manevra este greit0 ea are deseori un e*ect artistic e*icient. (ricum0 utilizarea unor
o$iective cu un ung)i mai #ngust este suprtoare i duce c)iar la e*ecte a$surde. ;e"ine"i0 de
asemenea0 c mrimea relativ a lui / i 6 sunt dependente de distan"a la care se a*l unul *a"
de altulO cu ct este mai mare distan"a0 cu att este mai mare di*eren"a i atunci0 cu toate c ar
putea *i accepta$il un o$iectiv cu ung)i de 15 cnd / i 6 sunt la 105 m unul de altul0 aceasta
nu ar mai corespunde pentru o distan" de cca.006m #ntre / i 6. Iat #n *igura de mai &os0 o
imagine a aceluiai cadru realizat cu trei o$iective di*erite cnd / i 6 sunt la apro3imativ 00'
102m unul *a" de altul.
-. 7revede"i timpul necesar sc)im$rii o$iectivelor.
1amerele de televiziune de studio sunt ec)ipate cu turele pe care se pot monta patru o$iective
de di*erite ung)iuri Ccom$ina"ia o$inuit include o$iective de '0 160 24 i 35 de gradeD care
pot *i utilizate de ctre operator rotind turela. 7rocedeul este numit al ?o$iectivelor rotitoare@
i reclam cteva secunde. Sc)im$area o$iectivului poate *i *cut numai cnd camera nu este
#n emisie0 pentru un timp su*icient de lung necesar rotirii turelei0 recadrrii i *ocalizrii pe
noul su$iect. !rans*ocatoarele *ac desigur sc)im$area de ung)i ec)ivalent mult mai rapid.
2n trans*ocator modern are o pla& continu de varia"ie a ung)iului de la 5 la 50 i orice punt
intermediar poate *i preselectat. (peratorul apas pe un $uton i ung)iul nou este o$"inut
aproape imediat. Se recomand ca i aceast manevr s *ie *cut cnd camera nu este #n
emisie Ccu e3cep"ia e*ectelor specialeD pentru c0 #n caz contrar0 va apare o sritur neplcut
pe imagine. .ste necesar s vi se #ntipreasc $ine #n minte *aptul c trans*ocatoarele au0 #n
e3ploatare0 pe lng avanta&e i dezavanta&e. .le au *ost proiectate ini"ial pentru camere
sta"ionare i au punctul de *ocalizare apropiat de cel pu"in 00' m. 5e aceea0 ele sunt greoaie #n
realizarea cadrelor Cde e3. cnd camera se mic #n timpul emisieD. 2n o$iectiv normal de
ung)i relativ larg poate s se mite #n &urul su$iectului0 descriind un arc mai mic0 ceea ce
reclam pentru camer i stativ pu"in deplasare.
64
Cadre realizate cu trei o!iective di8erite" 91 2; i /< de grade
Compoziia cadrului
1ompozi"ia cadrului se re*rer la modul de aran&are i dispunere a o$iectelor i a
persoanelor #n spa"iul #n care vor *i *ilmate. 1ompozi"ia cadrului are elemente #mprumutate de
pictur Cecranul poate *i asimitat cu o pnz0 #ns o$iectele0 persoanele sunt #n micareD.
1. :n prim planurile oamenilor0 evita"i att ocuparea de ctre cap a unei supra*e"e prea mici ct
i a unei supra*e"e prea mari. ;e"ine"i c niciodat capul su$iectului nu tre$uie s ating
marginea de sus a cadrului i $r$ia su$iectului nu tre$uie s ating marginea de &os a
acestuia0 cu e3cep"ia cazului #n care prim planul este att de apropiat #nct att $r$ia ct i
*runtea sunt tiate.
1.a. /sigura"i8v c to"i operatorii de camer din ec)ip au aceeai concep"ie despre mrimea
supra*e"ei pe care tre$uie s o ocupe capul Cpe ecranD i c o men"in. 5ac operatorii de
camer ce particip la aceeai produc"ie au concep"ii di*erite despre supra*a"a corect din
imagine0 pe care tre$uie s o ocupe capul unei persoane0 e*ectul poate *i *oarte neplcut pentru
telespectator. <a tieturi0 capetele se vor deplasa #n cadru #n sus i #n &os0 iar e*ectul va *i acela
al unei imagini ne#ngri&ite. :n *igura de mai &os e3empli*icm trei modalit"i de realizare a
aceluiai cadru=
65
1.$. :ntr8un cadru strns individual8 dac su$iectul privete la dreapta0 deplasa"i8l uor din
centrul imaginii spre stnga. 5ac su$iectul privete spre stnga0 cadra"i0 plasndu8l uor spre
dreapa imaginii. :n a*ar de *aptul c este mai plcut s nu vezi *a"a su$iectului strivit de
cadru0 dac aceast regul nu este respectat0 #n momentul tieturii #ntre o perec)e de prim
planuri0 cei doi su$iec"i pot aprea ca stnd spate #n spate.
7re8erai aceast ncadratur n locul))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))acesteia)
1.c. .vita"i cadrele #n care diverse o$iecte par din cretetul capului cuiva0 ca urmare a *aptului
c ele au aceeai linie cu su$iectul i cu camera. 1adrul 1 pare #ntr8un *el ridicol. 5ac0 de
e3emplu0 lsm camera uor spre dreapta sau su$iectul uor spre stnga0 a&ungem la cadrul 2
care este cu mult mai $un.
66
Cadrul 4 Cadrul 2
1.d.
.vita"i
cadrele
mai largi
dect
este
necesar
pentru ca
ele s
con"in
ac"iunea0
i mai
riguros
#nc0
evita"i
cadrele
prea
strnse
pentru a
con"ine
ac"iunea.
5e
dragul
clarit"ii0
este de
dorit ca
toate
cadrele
s *ie ct
de
apropiate
posi$il.
7e de
alt
parte0
este
enervant
pentru
telespect
atori
cnd
camera
este prea
aproape
i tocmai
ac"iunea
ce ar
tre$ui
urmrit
rmne
#n a*ara
cadrului.
.ste
plicticos
s tii c
cineva
citete i
nu vezi
ce citete
sau s nu
vezi ce
$utur
se toarn
#n
pa)are.
.ste urt
i
enervant
ca
minile
ce *ac
gesturi
e3presiv
e s ias
din
cadru. (
greeal
comis
des este
aceea a
prim
planului
prea
apropiat0
ce nu
asigur
capului
su*icient
de mult
spa"iu
pentru
micare.
/ceasta
o$lig
operator
ul s
panoram
eze
continuu
pentru a
men"ine
capul #n
cadru iar
e*ectul
este
suprtor
i
distrage
aten"ia.
1adrul
ideal este
acela
care
con"ine
ac"iunea
esen"ial.
1.e. :n
general0
evita"i
cadrele
#n care
oamenilo
r vzu"i
din *a"
le sunt
retezate
*igurile
de
marginil
e
ecranului
.
Ereit
Corect
/ceasta
este un
e*ect
deose$it
de
suprtor
i de urt
i se
datorete
camerei
care
#ncearc
s *ie
mai
aproape
dect ar
tre$ui s
*ie.
Imaginea
va *i
#ntotdeau
na
inestetic
.
.3cep"ie
de la
regul
*ace
cadrarea
pe o
mul"ime
de
oameni.
:n cazul
unei
aglomer
ri
naturale0
e*ectul
nu este
de
condamn
at. :n
cazul
unei
aglomer
ri
simulate0
#n studio0
compus
din
c"iva
oameni0
e*ectul
este util
spre a
*ace
aglomera
rea s
par
continu
i mai
mare
dect
este #n
realitate.
1nd se
cadreaz
pe un
grup
*ormat
din0 de
e3.0 cinci
sau ase
persoane
0 este
deose$it
de
6-
neplcut ca cei ce stau pe e3treme s par cu *e"ele tiate vertical0 din cauza ecranului. :n acest
gen de cadru0 dac se procedeaz totui la gruparea persoanelor este de pre*erat s cadreze
prea larg #n loc de prea strns.
>ceast ncadratur este mult mai !un dect ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) aceasta)
2.a. :n cazul cadrrii unui grup0 compune"i imaginea #n adncime i evita"i linia dreapt.
2.$. .vita"i gruparea interpre"ilor ast*el #nct o persoan0 care nu este esen"ial cadrului0 s
apar #n planul #ndeprtat &umtate mascat de altcineva care este #n prim plan. .vita"i
gruparea unei persoane ce apare numai pe &umtate0 #n planul #ndeprtat al unui cadru0 este
deose$it de neplcut i poate distrage aten"ia telespectatorului . 5ac persoana este esen"ial
cadrului sau poate contri$ui la #m$unt"irea lui0 plasa"i8o ast*el #nct s *ie complet vizi$il.
5ac nu0 scoate"i8o complet din cadru.
0vitai aceast 7re8erai aceast sau pe aceasta
ncadratur ncadratur
2.c. ,ica"i o$iectivele de interes #n cadru0 evita"i s le strnge"i #n mi&loc neavnd nimic #n
mi&locul su.
6%
7re8erai acest cadru n locul acestuia sau al acestuia)
6ar mai !ine
pre8erai
aceast
ultim
ncadratur
pentru c este
cea mai !ine
realizat
din punct
cinematogra8ic
.
1adrul #n doi
50[500 cum este
el numit0 tinde
#ntotdeauna s
prezinte
persona&ele
prea din pro*il
i ast*el se
pierde e3presia
*e"ei. 5e aceea0
pre*era"i o
perec)e de
cadre
complementare
peste umeri
ca #n *igura de
mai &os.
2.d. /sigura"i
planurilor deprtate
o$iecte #n prim plan.
2n plan deprtat *r
nimic #n plan apropiat
este neinteresant0 urt
i destul de plat0 cu
mult spa"iu gol #n
&osul imaginii0 cu tot
decorul la distan"0 #n
partea de sus a
imaginii. ($iectivele
din planul apropiat0
un ar$ust sau o pies
de mo$ilier0 ascund
podeaua sau
pmntul0 *ac partea
de &os a cadrului
interesant i dau
adncime
compozi"iei.
6'
Comparai aceste dou imagini1 cea din stnga cu o!iecte n prim plan i cea din
dreapta1 8r)
2.e. 1nd realiza"i o compozi"ie #n adncime0 ave"i #n vedere adncimea de *ocalizare.
/dncimea de *ocalizare reprezint distan"a dintre punctul cel mai apropiat de o$iectiv0 care
apare *ocalizat i punctul cel mai deprtat0 care este i el *ocalizat #n acelai timp. /dncimea
de *ocalizare variaz cu=
/. ($iectivul. 1u ct este mai mare ung)iul de desc)idere al lentilei0 cu att este mai mare
adncimea Cpro*unzimeaD de *ocalizare.
6. 5istan"a o$iectivului *a" de su$iect. 1u ct distan"a este mai mare0 cu att adncimea de
*ocalizare este mai mare.
1. Intensitatea luminii. 1u ct intensitatea ei este mai mare0 cu att este mai mare adncimea
de *ocalizare. 5ac lumina este strlucitoare CputernicD0 apertura o$iectivului descrete.
/ceasta asigur o mai mare adncime de *ocalizare. 5ac lumina este mai pu"in strlucitoare
Cmai pu"in intensD i tre$uie utilizat o apertur mai mare0 adncimea de *ocalizare este mai
mic. 5ac inten"iona"i s realiza"i un cadru cu mare pro*unzime0 mai ales unul #ntru8un plan
detaliu accentuat sau unul cu ung)i #ngust al o$iectivului0 o$"ine"i avizul te)nicienilor asupra
posi$ilit"ilor de a*i men"inut *ocalizarea. 1u toate c #n general se urmrete o *ocalizare ct
mai precis #n toat pro*unzimea cadrului0 sunt i e3cep"ii. :ntr8un prim plan Kpeste umr@0 de
e3emplu0 urmrind s *avorizm persoana ce st cu *a"a spre camer0 este posi$il ca persoana
ce st cu spatele spre camer s apar uor de*ocalizat. 5ac am$ele persoane ar sta cu *a"a
la camer ar *i mai pu"in accepta$il ca una din ele s apar de*ocalizat. :ntru8un plan detaliu
poate *i avanta&os 8 #n scopul concentrrii aten"iei telespectatorului pe *igura su$iectului 8 ca
*undalul s apar de*ocalizat i ters0 atrgnd deci aten"ia asupra primului. .ste deci de dorit
ca0 oricum0 *igurile s apar *oarte $ine *ocalizate. >u v lsa"i indui #n eroare de vizoarele
de $uzunar. /cestea sunt *i3ate la o *ocalizare precis #n toat gama lor i nu pot constitui un
g)id.
2.* <sa"i lumina s v a&ute #n realizarea cadrelor.
5istri$u"ia luminii #n scen poate avea o mare in*luen" asupra mririi sau reducerii e*icien"ei
cadrelor. 5ac lumina este prea plat0 su$iectele imaginii dumneavoastr nu vor aprea #n
relie*. 5ac ea este prea localizat0 ac"iunea sau e3presii importante pot s nu *ie vzute. :n
transmisiuni e3terioare sau la *ilmri va tre$uie 8 deseori 8 s accepta"i lumina care vi se o*er0
dar #n studio pute"i comanda e*ectele de lumin dorite i este important s consulta"i
te)nicianul de lumin pentru a presta$ili sc)ema de lumini. 5e e3emplu0 s zicem o *ereastr0
#ncerca"i s aran&a"i decorul ast*el #nct lumina ce o comanda"i 8 de la pupitru 8 i care vine din
partea *erestrei0 s *avorizeze ac"iunea principal. Sc)im$rile de tonalitate a luminii0 de la
-0
scen la scen0 vor da varietate i vor ridica calitatea programuluiO o lumin ce traverseaz un
spa"iu0 asemenea celei ce se proiecteaz #ntr8un coridor prin desc)iderea unei ui0 va aduga
un plus de pro*unzime sceneiO iluminarea de sus sau conturarea unor siluete vor asigura un
plus de dramatism ac"iunii. 7entru a realiza toate aceste este esen"ial s v asigura"i c
te)nicianul de lumin i scenogra*ul au #n"eles per*ect ceea ce dumneavoastr dori"i s
realiza"i. :n prezent0 cea mai mare parte a camerelor de televiziune pot lucra e*ectiv cu o
aparatur de *.5=6 i deci studioul va *i luminat la un nivel corespunztor. /ceasta v va
asigura o pro*unzime su*icient a *ocalizrii dar0 dac dori"i e*ecte speciale de *ocalizare #n
pro*unzime0 tre$uie s avertiza"i dinainte pe te)nicianul de lumin.
(ilmarea) 2ecomandri re8eritoare la modul de utilizare a camerei video n teren
1. >u panorama"i trecnd peste o scen static numai pentru a a&unge cu camera dintrun loc #n
altul. 7anoramarea urmrind un o$iect sau o persoan #n micare. ,otivele ce au dus la
sta$ilirea acestei reguli sunt=
C/D /tta vreme ct camera se deplaseaz independent0 neurmrind nimic0 se atrage aten"ia
asupra sa i asupra te)nicii0 distrgnd aten"ia telespectatorului de la su$iect0 de la con"inutul
transmisiunii.
C6D ( asemenea panoramare poate *i motivat numai rareori.
C1D 7anoramarea peste o scen static este neplcut pentru telespectator pentru c este ceva
ce oc)iul omenesc nu *ace. :ncerca"iG 7rivi"i un o$iect #ntr8o parte a camerei apoi #ntoarce"i
capul i #ndrepta"i8v privirea sper un o$iect din cealalt parte a #ncperii. Pe"i constata c dei
a"i vzut cele dou o$iecte0 nu v ve"i da seama ce a"i vzut #ntre ele. 5e *apt0 oc)iul nu a
panoramat ci a Ktiat@ de pe un o$iect pe cellalt. 7e de alt parte0 oc)iul poate panorama
atunci cnd urmrete o persoan sau un o$iect #n micare. 7anoramarea rapid0 o micare
prin care camera capteaz un o$iect i apoi panorameaz *oarte repede i capteaz un alt
o$iect dei este o manevr discuta$il i urt totui admis pentru c i oc)iul o *ace0
tergnd detaliile ce intervin. /ceasta este asemenea unei tieturi cu o pat la mi&locO se
#nlocuiete o imagine de pe ecran prin alta0 deplasnd pe ecran linia de separare a celor dou
imagini. 7anoramarea *oarte0 *oarte lent asupra unui peisa& deprtat este permis pentru c
oc)iul o poate *ace0 cu condi"ia ca el s se mite su*icient de #ncet iar scena privit s *ie
su*icient de deprtat. (c)iul #ns nu reuete s *ac o micare rapid #ntr8un spa"iu restrns.
5e aceea0 nu panorama"i niciodat peste o scen static din decorul studioului0 cu e3cep"ia
unor cazuri deose$ite Cde e3. la deplasarea de la un o$iect la altul0 #n scopul realizrii unui
e*ect deose$it sau pentru a *urniza *undaluri unei serii de genericeD.
2. .vita"i panoramarea rapid.
.a produce un e*ect de trena& care este urt. /celai e*ect poate apare prin deplasarea rapid a
unor generice. C/ceasta este important mai ales cnd programul este #nregistrat pe *ilm0
deoarece #n urma micrii unor o$iecte cu o oarecare vitez0 c)iar i #n cazul ec)ipamentului
modern0 pot apare dreD.
3. >u deplasa"i camera spre #napoi dect #n cazul #n care urmri"i o persoan sau un o$iect ce
se apropie de camer0 sau cnd panorama"i un grup care se lrgete #n timpul urmririi0 sau
cnd manevra #n cauz este serios motivat de ac"iune sau de dialog. /ceast regul este
desigur o e3tindere a unei reguli anterioare. >u *ace"i niciodat o manevr ce apare
nemotivat pentru telespectator. >u deplasa"i camera spre #napoi0 de e3emplu numai pentru ca
plecnd de la un cadru #n care sunt dou persoane0 s pute"i capta ua0 deoarece ti"i s la un
moment dat0 va intra cineva. ,otivul nu va *i clar telespectatorului dect #n *inal0 i ast*el0
-1
manevra #i va *i distras aten"ia de la con"inutul cadrului trecut. :ntr8o ast*el de situa"ie0 ve"i tia
pe un plan deprtat0 la Kclicul@ clan"ei0 Kclicul@ *iind totodat motivarea tieturii. 5eplasarea
camerei spre #napoi #n televiziune este deose$it de neindicat0 deoarece de*ini"ia imaginii va *i
imper*ect iar oc)iul omenesc dorete s vad #ntotdeauna mai clar sau0 alt*el spus0 el va vrea
s ptrund mai aproape de su$iect. :n timp ce apropierea de su$iect satis*ace aceast dorin"
i este motivat de aceasta0 deprtarea de su$iect #nseamn reversul i irit telespectatorul.
;etragerea camerei0 avnd #n cadru o persoan sau un o$iect ce se apropie de camer0 este
admis pentru c #n cazul acesta camera se deprteaz numai *a" de o$iectul aten"iei. ,ai
mult0 deplasarea persoanei sau a o$iectului motiveaz manevra0 dndu8i o logic. :n mod
similar0 deprtarea camerei0 #n timp ce se panorameaz un grup care se lrgete0 este admis
deoarece #nsi lrgirea grupului o motiveaz. 5ac nu avea loc retragerea camerei0 o parte
din grup ar *i rmas #n a*ara cadrului. /ceasta este #ntr8adevr o deplasare #n sensul deprtrii0
motivat de ac"iune. 2n alt e3emplu de deprtare a camerei0 motivat de ac"iune0 este s
zicem cazul urmtor= ave"i planul apropiat mediu al unei persoane aezat pe un scaun. .a se
ridic i pentru a cuprinde i ridicarea este necesar s retrage"i cameraO ridicarea motiveaz
deplasarea camere spre #napoi. !re$uie re"ine"i c0 dei manevra este legitim0 ea este di*icil
i uor riscant #n transmisiunea pe viu. ,anevra tre$uie repetat i sincronizat cu gri&.
5ac retragerea camerei are loc prea devreme0 ea nu va *i motivat i va distrage aten"ia. 5ac
are loc prea trziu0 capul persoanei care se ridic de pe scaun0 de e3.0 poate iei pentru un
moment #n a*ara ca drului0 ceea ce denot un stil de lucru nepro*esional. 7entru a *i #n regul0
retragerea camerei tre$uie s ai$ un loc a$solut pe ridicare. /r *i mai #n"elept s trece"i pe un
plan deprtat al ridicrii prin tietur. 2n e3emplu de retragere a camerei motivat de dialog=
imagina"i8v un specialist #n istoria artelor vor$ind despre pictur. .l ne arat un prim plan al
unui detaliu al ta$loului i #l comenteaz. /poi el spune= K/cum )ai s privim pictura #n
#ntregul ei@. .ste deci logic s retragem camera pentru a *ace ceea ce s8a cerut oc)iului
omenesc s *ac. ,anevra nu va irita telespectatorul pentru c acesta dorete mrirea
cmpului vizual0 deci deprtarea camerei.
3.a. .vita"i micarea continu a camerei.
1amera #n micare poate *i *oarte e*icient dar este posi$il s te plictiseti de un lucru $un
dac acesta a$und. .*ectul poate *i enervant i poate distrage aten"ia telespectatorului de la
su$iect0 #ndreptnd8o asupra camerei O continua micare a camerei0 orict de inspirat ar *i0
denot o proast manevrare a ei. :nv"a"i regula % i nu deplasa"i camera niciodat *r un
motiv serios0 un motiv pentru telespectator0 care decurge din ac"iune sau dialog.
4. >u tia"i #n nici o #mpre&urare #ntre camere care dau practic aceeai imagine0 #n cazul
unei transmisii directe sau a unei #nregistrri.
!ia"i numai #ntre camere care o*er=
C/D Su$iecte total di*erite0 sau0 dac su$iectele sunt aceleai0 dar
C6D 5i*eren"a #ntre planuri este sensi$il.
C1D 2ng)iurile su$ care sunt e*ectuate cadrele0 di*er sensi$il.
/ceasta este poate cea mai important i mai o$ligatorie dintre toate regulile. ,otivele care au
determinat8o sunt=
1. 5ac am$ele camere dau practic acelai cadru0 nu poate e3ista o ra"iune pentru tietur0
deoarece a doua camer nu va o*eri nimic di*erit *a" de ceea ce o*er prima. !ietura va *i
nemotivat i *r sens0 distrgnd aten"ia de la su$iect.
7ute"i tia de pe cadru 1 pe cadrul 2 pentru c cele dou cadre reprezint su$iecte di*erite.
-2
1adrul 1 Su$iecte di*erite 1adrul 2
:ns niciodat nu tre$uie s tia"i
depe cadru 3 pe cadrul 4 pentru c
am$ele cadre redau acelai su$iect
aproape #n aceeai #ncadratur.
1adrul 3
Su$iecte similare
1adrul 4
2. ,otivul cel mai puternic
#mpotriva tierii #ntre camere ce dau
cadre similare este e*ectul
discordant i a$surd. ( asemenea
tietur nu arat ca atare0 ci d
impresia c oamenii i o$iectele din
imagine au srit spasmodic #ntr8o
pozi"ie uor di*erit de cea
anterioar. 5m un e3emplu pentru
a #n"elege mi $ine aceast
recomandare=
C/D !ia"i0 s zicem0 de pe un prim
plan al lui N pe un prim plan
similar0 adecvat al lui T0 pentru c
su$iectele sunt di*erite. >u tre$uie
s tia"i niciodat de pe un prim
plan al lui T pe altul similar al
aceluiai N. :n cazul de mai &os0
pute"i tia de pe cadrul 1 pe cadrul
2 deoarece distan"ele di*er Cavem o
trecere de la prim plan la plan
mediuD.
1adrul
1
5istan
"
di*erit

1adrul
2
-3
:n cazul acesta0 este interzis s se taie de pe cadrul 3 pe cadrul 4 pentru c sunt #ncadraturi
similare i e*ecul ar *i de Ksritur #n cadru@.
1adrul 3 :ncadraturi similare 1adrul 4
C6D 7ute"i tia de la un triplu prim plan al lui N0 T i U la un plan mediu al lui N0 T0 U pentru
c distan"a0 cadra&ul0 sunt di*erite. >u tre$uie s tia"i niciodat de la un cadru #n care sunt N0
T i U.
C1D 7ute"i tia de pe un prim plan al lui N e*ectuat peste umrul lui T0 un prim plan al lui T
e*ectuat peste umrul lui N pentru c0 dei cadra&ul este acelai0 e3ist o sc)im$are sensi$il
de ung)iuri. >u tre$uie s tia"i niciodat de pe un cadru #n care apar N i T la unul similar al
lui N i T. :n acest caz0 putem tia de pe cadrul 1 pe cadrul 2 pentru c avem ung)iuri
di*erite. .ste clasicul caz de plan i contraplan0 utilizat *recvent #n *ilmarea interviurilor.
1adrul 1 5i*er ung)iul 1adrul 2
:ns #n cazul urmtor0 nu putem tia de pe cadrul 3 pe cadrul 4 #ntruct avem ung)iuri
similare.
IW1
1adrul 3
2ng)iuri similare 1adrul 4
-4
5. :n cazul secven"elor de tietur #n cruce0 pre*era"i cadrele asemenea Cdin punct de vedere al
mrimii ung)iuluiD celor ce di*er0 ung)iurile complementare celor ce nu sunt complementare.
7rin Ksecven"a de tietur #n cruce@ se #n"eleg #n care se taie de mai multe ori #ntre dou
camere ce dau o perec)e de cadre0 cum se #ntmpla de pild #n cazul dialogurilor statice. :n
aceste cazuri0 cnd cadrele nu sunt asemenea0 tieturilor vor *i *oarte evidente i e*ectul va *i
neplcut. 1nd cadrele sunt asemenea0 tieturile vor *i oportune i e*ectul va *i al unei treceri
line. 5ac ung)iurilor sunt complementare0 persona&ele vor apare privind unul la cellalt.
1adre asemenea sunt acelea #n care mrimea interpretului0 relativ la cadru0 este aceeai #n
am$ele. .le vor *i asemenea i din punct de vedere al *undalului i al *igurilor0 dac este
posi$il. :n cazul cadrelor peste umr0 perspectiva tre$uie s *ie aceeai. 5e aceea0 *olosi"i0
peste am$ele0 aceleai o$iective0 la aceeai distan". 1nd este necesar s sc)im$a"i mrimea
cadrelor asemenea Cde e3. s trece"i de la plan mediu la prim planD0 sc)im$area va *i *cut la
am$ele camere #n momentul oportun. 7oate *ace e3cep"ie de la regul cazul #n care este
intervievat o personalitate. :n aceste cazuri0 este deseori mai reveren"ios s e3ploatm *igura
Kvictimei@ #ntr8un prim plan0 "inndu8l pe redactor la distan". C7lana >1 8ig) 21 /1 ;C
-5
%ig. ?
2ng)iuri dgdld
aGH
inenti
%ts."
1idi
i
peats umlr eeddff (,dotl!d
egalaL aceeaGl pdrLpLotLg
7lana >
-6
I
7lana ? B8ig) <1 61 :C
2ng)iurile complementare sunt acelea #n care linia oc)ilor interpretului *ace acelai ung)i
cu direc"ia de orientare a o$iectivului0 cu toat direc"ia opus Cvezi 7lana /0 *ig.2DO alt *el
spus0 imagina"i8v o linie dreapt ce unete doi oameni care privesc unul la cellalt i8i
vor$esc. :n cazul ung)iurilor complementare0 *iecare camer va *ace acelai ung)i cu linia
dreapt. >umai dac aceast condi"ie este #ndeplinit0 cei doi vor apare #n imagine ca
privindu8se unul pe cellalt. 2nii #nceptori sus"in c o perec)e de cadre peste umr nu pot *i
o$"inute #n televiziune0 deoarece camerele ar intra una #n cadrul celeilalte. 5ar0 acest lucru nu
se mai #ntmpl desigur #n cazul #n care se lucreaz corect i se amplaseaz am$ele camere de
aceeai parte a liniei imaginare ce unete cei doi su$iec"i. .3amina"i 7lana / *ig. 40 care
--
indic dispunerea corect a camerelor pentru acest mod de lucru. 1adrele *urnizate de *iecare
din ele sunt a$solut independente de cealalt camer.
6. .vita"i0 cu orice pre"0 s dispune"i camerele ast*el #nct su$iectul s priveasc spre stnga0 #n
a*ara cadrului0 #ntr8o imagine0 i spre dreapta0 #n a*ara cadrului0 #n imaginea urmtoare.
/ceasta este una din greelile cele mai mari pe care le poate comite un regizor. .*ectul este
deose$it de enervant i de a$surd. <a prima vedere0 e*ectul nu pare a *i posi$il dar0 el este
totui. 7rivi"i 7lana 10 *ig. %.
7lana C
/ i 6 sunt dou persoane ce poart o conversa"ie. 1amera10 cu un o$iectiv cu ung)i larg0
capteaz am$ele persoane simultan #ntr8un cadru plan mediu.0 *avorizndu8l pe /. 1amera 20
cu un o$iectiv cu ung)i #ngust0 #l capteaz pe / #ntr8un prim plan individual. 5ac dorim s
tiem de pe camera 1 pe camera 20 / va privi #n a*ar spre dreapta captat cu camera 1 i #n
a*ar spre stnga captat cu camera 2. .l va aprea ca i cum #n mod magic s8ar *i rsucit #n
timpul tierii. /ici0 regula este s trage"i o linie imaginar #ntre / i 6 i s v asigura"i c
am$ele camere sunt de aceeai parte a liniei. Pe"i remarca #n plana 50 *ig. '0 c am$ele
camere sunt de aceeai parte a liniei imaginare dintre / i 6 i de aceea / va privi de la stnga
la dreapta #n am$ele cadre.
7lana 6
-%
S considerm un alt e3emplu o$inuit. Imagina"i8v un pianist #ntr8o sal de concert0 cntnd
la pian i *iind captat cu dou camereO 1amera 1 d un plan deprtat i 1amera 2 / d un prim
plan. 1amerele sunt dispuse ca #n Fig.100 de am$ele pr"i ale pianistului. /ici0 din nou0 pentru
c am tiat Klinia imaginar@0 pianistul privete de la stnga la dreapta #n imaginea camerei 1
i de la dreapta la stnga #n imaginea 1amerei 2/0 prnd c *ace salturi de 1%0 de grade0 #n
cazul #n care am tia #ntre cele dou camere. 5ac vom trasa linia imaginar0 #ntre pianist i
pian i vom men"ine am$ele camere C1 i K6D de aceeai parte a ei0 el va privi #n am$ele
imagini #nspre aceeai direc"ie.
7lana 0
.ste adevrat c0 realiznd o transmisiune dintr8o sal de concert cu pu$lic0 regizorul nu poate
s8i plaseze camerele e3act unde dorete. .l le va amplasa unde este posi$il0 dar aceasta nu
#nseamn c pot *i acuzate tieturile de pe camera 1 pe camera 2 /. ;egizorul va tre$ui s mai
dispun de cel pu"in o camer. 5ac #ntre aceste cadre Ccamera 1 i camera 2 /D0 el va tia
8pentru o secund mcar 8 pe un cadru cu pu$licul0 sau #n cazul unui concert de pian0 pe
diri&or0 sc)im$area nici nu va *i remarcat.
22a. 1nd tia"i #ntre cei doi interlocutori #ntr8o convor$ire tele*onic0 plasa"i8i ast*el #nct
unul s priveasc spre dreapta iar cellalt spre stnga. Su$ nici un motiv cei doi nu au voie s
priveasc #n aceeai direc"ie. 5ei0 #n realitate0 cei doi interlocutori pot privi am$ii #n aceeai
direc"ie0 #ntr8un *ilm sau #ntr8o emisiune de televiziune aceasta produce asupra
telespectatorului un e*ect straniu. .i nu vor da impresia c8i vor$esc unul altuia ci unei a treia
persoane0 nevzute. :n su$contient noi ne ateptm ca oamenii ce8i vor$esc unul altuia s se
-'
priveasc. 5ac aceast solicitare a su$contientului nu este satis*cut0 deran&m i distragem
telespectatorul.
6ac vom tia ntre perec%ea de cadre 4 i 21 cele dou persoane nu vor prea c vor!esc
la tele8on una cu alta1 neeIistnd o aI imaginar a privirii ntre cele dou persoane)
Cadrul 4 Cadrul 2
6ac vom inversa poziia uneia dintre persoane n cadru Bcadrul / i cadrul ;C1 cele dou
persoane1 n succesiunea cadrelor1 vor crea impresia c vor!esc mpreun la tele8on)
Cadrul / Cadrul ;
22$. 5ac unii interpre"i privesc #n a*ar cadrului spre un o$iect nevzut de ctre telespectatori0
asigura"i8v c to"i privesc #n aceeai direc"ie 8 c to"i au aceeai linie a oc)ilor. 5ac0 #ntr8o
pies0 de e3emplu0 ave"i un grup de actori ce privesc un o$iect din a*ara cadrului0 s spunem
partea de sus a unei cldiri #nalte0 8 este esen"ial ca to"i s priveasc #n aceeai direc"ie0 alt*el
e*ectul este *als i arti*icial. 7lasa"i #n a*ara cadrului un mic disc0 un steag sau orice alt o$iect
uor de recunoscut i spune"i8le s8l priveasc. 1ea mai mic deviere a liniei oc)ilor poate *i
o$servat de ctre telespectatori dar aceasta se evit precednd ca mai sus. 5ac o$iectul din
a*ara cadrului spre care privesc actorii este #n micare0 atunci o$iectul din studio va tre$ui s
se mite i el. ( main #n micare poate *i simulat de un om ce se deplaseaz avnd un steag
#n mn. 5ac actorii din imagine #l privesc pe N urcnd #n turnul sau0 aran&a"i ca omul s *ie
ridicat de un scripete sau de a o marca pentru ca to"i oc)ii s se #ndrepte #n aceeai direc"ie i
s se ridice cu aceeai vitez.
23..vita"i s dispunem camerele ast*el #nct o persoan sau un o$iect s par c se deplaseaz
de la stnga la dreapta #ntr8o imagine i de la dreapta la stnga #n urmtoarea i invers0 s par
c #i sc)im$ direc"ia de deplasare la mi&locul traiectoriei. .*ectul este #n cazul acesta #nc i
mai a$surd dect dac #nclca"i regula 22. 7rincipiul pe $aza cruia tre$uie evitat manevra
este aceeai0 doar c #n acest caz0 toate camerele tre$uie plasate de aceeai parte a liniei de
deplasare. Imagina"i8v o curs de cai i un grup de clre"i galopnd pe o pist0 camerele
*iind dispuse de8o parte i de alta a pistei. Pe"i vedea c0 dac deplasarea cailor se *ace #n
%0
sensul indicat de sgeat0 #n imaginea unei camere caii vor aprea ca mergnd de la dreapta la
stnga i #n imaginea celeilalte camere vor aprea ca mergnd #n sens opus0 deci de la stnga
la dreapta. 5ac tia"i #ntre aceste camere e*ectul va *i grotesc. :ncerca"i acum s plasa"i
am$ele camere #m interiorul cur$ei unei piste de alergri0 am$ele de aceeai parte a liniei de
deplasare C*ig. 11D.
(ig) 44
/cum0 caii se vor deplasa #n aceeai direc"ie0 #n imaginile am$elor camere0 care tind spre
realizarea unui ec)il$ru. /ceste con*uzii #n direc"ie apar mai pu"in #n produc"iile realizate #n
studio0 #n cazul decorurilor conven"ionale cu trei pere"i Ccu toate c pot aprea i aiciD0 dar ele
pot aprea cu uurin" #n transmisiunile directe cnd camerele nu sunt corect amplasate. <a un
meci de *ot$al sau la un turneu de tenis0 regula este= trage"i o linie imaginar prin centrul
terenului de *ot$al de la poart la poart0 #n lungul terenului de tenis #n ung)i drept *a" de
plas i instala"ii toate camerele de aceeai parte a liniei. >u import ct de aproape sunt ele
de linie atta timp ct nu o traverseaz0 dar #n momentul #n care acesta se #ntmpl0 ve"i *i #n
#ncurctur i telespectatorii vor pierde no"inea direc"iei.
>ot= ($serva"iile de mai sus0 re*eritoare la transmisiunile e3terioare0 se re*er la ceea cu
tre$uie *cut. :n practic0 sunt cazuri #n care camerele se pun acolo unde se pot pune i este
mai $ine s vezi cursa sau meciul oricum 8 c)iar dac din punct de vedere te)nic nu este
corect 8 dect s nu vezi deloc. <ucrarea de *a"0 #ns0 este un manual de care tre$uie s s
prezinte mai #nti de metodele corecte de *ilmare.
24. .vita"i ca printr8o tietur s *ace"i ca un punct de interes ma&or al imaginii s sar dintr8o
parte #n cealalt a cadrului. 5ac o$iectul sau persoana respectiv sunt0 s spunem0 #n stnga
ecranului0 #ntr8un cadru0 ele vor tre$ui s se gseasc tot #n stnga i #n cadrul urmtor.
/ceasta este o regul uor de #nclcat0 o capcan #n care se cade uor dac nu veg)ea"i cu
aten"ie0 iar e*ectul este neplcut i ridicol. 7rivi"i e3emplul de mai &os CFig. 12D. 7e imaginea
%1
camerei 10 6 este #n stnga ecranului i pe imaginea camerei 20 6 este #n dreaptaO de aceea0 #n
urma tieturii de pe o camer pe alta 6 va sri dintr8o parte #n cealalt a cadrului.
(ig) 42
7e *ig. 120 acoperi"i cu degetul imaginea dat de camera 1 i privi"i imaginea camerei 2. /cum
deplasa"i degetele repede0 #n aa *el #nct s acoperi"i imaginea camerei 1. ;epeta"i micarea
de cteva ori. Pe"i avea senza"ia unei tieturii de pe o imagine pe cealalt i ve"i vedeea cum 6
sare dintr8o parte #n cealalt a cadrului. .3emplul de mai sus este desigur un caz e3trem
deoarece cele dou imagini sunt similare i 6 este complet la dreapta #n una i complet la
stnga #n cealalt. .3amina"i acest caz CFig.13D
(ig) 4/
6 este compet #n dreapta imaginii date de camera 2 dar #n centrul imaginii date de camera 1.
Sritura ei este mult mai mic. ,ai mult0 imaginiile sunt destul de di*erite i mica sritur nu
va *i o$servat. /ceast regul nu se aplic numai unei persoane sau unui o$iect de interes
%2
ma&or0 ci se aplic i unuia de mai mic interes. Imagina"i8v cele dou persoane anga&ate #ntr8o
conversa"ie0 stnd de am$ele pr"i ale unei mese i vor$indu8i peste mas. Imagina"i8v c
sunt captate de dou camere ce dau cadre complementare peste umr ca #n Fig. 14=
(ig) 4;
Imagina"i8v o glastr cu *lori inoportun plasat la captul mesei i care apare #n am$ele
cadre. :n imaginea dat de o camer ea va apare #n dreapta cadrului0 #n cazul celeilalte va
apare la stnga. <a *iecare tietur0 *lorile vor z$ura dintr8o parte #n cealalt a ecranului0 ceea
ce poate distrage aten"ia #n mod regreta$il telespectatorului. 2n o$iect mic i relativ pu"in
o$serva$il0 supus unui e*ect similar0 nu va deran&a aa de mult dar o glastr cu *lori0 o statuie0
o lamp sau o$iecte similare0 vor deran&a *oarte mult.
24 a. .vita"i ca #n prim planuri s apar o$iecte sau pr"i din o$iecte ce pot distrage aten"ia. :n
studiourile de televiziune este deseori di*icil s respectm aceast regul dar0 se poate totui
proceda con*orm ei0 dac nu se iau msuri speciale. 7oate *i un enervant ca #ntr8un prim plan
al lui / s apar0 la o margine a ecranului0 )aina0 mneca sau $ustul lui 6. /ceasta stric
compozi"ia i de o$icei distrage aten"ia telespectatorului de la ceea ce spune /. .*ectul este cu
att mai suprtor dac se vede numai o parte din )ain0 din mnec sau din $ust0 pentru c
telespectatorul #ncearc s identi*ice o$iectul. 5eci0 #ndeprta"i din cadru tot ce ar putea s
distrag aten"ia telespectatorului de la persoana /.
24 $.:n cadrele peste umr 8 nu admite"i ca *igura unei persoane *ie mascat sau s se
suprapun par"ial cu capul celeilalte persoane. :n acest tip de cadra&0 unsa dintre persoane nu
tre$uie s *ie prea mult la dreapta sau la stnga pentru c ar putea masca0 #n mod nedorit0
persoana creia #i vor$ete.
24 c ,en"ine"i ung)iului camerei ct se poate de apropiat de linia oc)ilor su$iectului. 1u ct
su$iectul este mai #n pro*il *a" de camer cu att mai mult se pierde e3presia *e"ei. :n general0
#n cazurile #n care e3presia *e"ei este important0 pre*era"i pro*ilului captarea complet din *a".
24 d. >u admite"i niciodat c un interpret s priveasc direct #n o$iectivul camerei att timp
ct nu este necesar s dea impresia telespectatorului c i se adreseaz direct. 2n actor ce &oac
#ntr8o pies i se presupun c vor$ete unui alt persona& al piesei0 nu tre$uie s priveasc
niciodat #n o$iectiv. 5ac el procedeaz totui aa0 va aprea ca adresnduse direct
%3
telespectatorului. Pese"i i regula 24 c. :ntr8o pies #n care e3presia *e"ei este important0
men"ine"i canere ct mai aproape de linia oc)ilor actorului dar nu permite"i acestuia s
priveasc direct #n o$iectiv. 5ac actorul privete numai cu pu"in #n a*ara o$iectivului0 el nu
va prea a se adresa direct telespectatorului. :ntr8o transmisiune pe viu0 dac su$iectul
vor$ete privind direct la camer0 sc)im$area camerelor poate produce un e*ect deconcentrant
asupra acestuia. 7rintr8o asemenea manevr ve"i crea un plus de di*icultate vor$itorului
neo$inuit cu televiziunea i neantrenat cu orientarea privirii dup camera care este #n emisie.
;ezultatele pot *i din cele mai ne*ericite.
Atilizarea racordurilor la monta#
;acordul reprezint un cadru *ilmat special cu ocazia *ilmrilor generale0 care permite
trecerea lin de la un cadru la altul sau de la o secven" la alta. 5ac #n lim$a&ul
cinematogra*ic i de televiziune cadrele pot *i ec)ivalate cu cuvintele din presa scris0 #n
cadrul aceleiai compara"ii0 racordurile pot *i considerate ca avnd rolul punctua"iei. 7ractica
i literatura de specialitate au impus cteva tipuri de racorduri utilizate *recvent #n produc"iile
de televiziune= racordul de micare0 racordul de culoare0 racordul de lumin0 racordul de
direc"ie0 racordul de privire0 plan8contraplan.
;acordul de privire. 1el mai o$inuit caz se re*er la dialogurile #ntre persona&e. :n aceast
situa"ie0 *iecare plan #n succesiunea de cadre urmrete s arate ceeea ce vede cellalt persona&
i invers. 2n caz particular este succesiunea plan contraplan0 *oarte des #ntlnit #n cazul tal4
s)o98urilor. 2n alt e3emplu de racord de privire este succesiunea de vo3 pops uri #n
cadrul unui reporta& de tiri. /cestea sunt *ilmate #n aa *el #nct0 urmnd unul dup altul0 se
creeaz iluzia c unul privete la altul0 dei #n realitate nu se #ntmpl aa.
;acordul de micare. /cest tip de racord are #n vedere succesiunea a dou cadre #n care un
persona& #i continu micarea. 2n caz clasic este intrarea pe u sau ieirea pe u. /ceast
micare poate realizat din dou sau trei cadre. ,icarea persona&ului #n cele dou cadre
tre$uie s se *ac cu aceeai vitez i s *ac gesturi asemntoare.
;acordul de direc"ie. ;egula de $aza a racordului de direc"ie are #n vedere *aptul c dac
un persona& a ieit din cadru prin partea drapt0 el poate intra # cadru prin partea stng Cpe
partea opusD. <a cursele auto0 dac mainile a*late #ntr8un aumit punct pe traseu ies din cadru
prin dreapta0 urmtoarea camer care preia *ilmarea va sigura #ncadratura ast*el #nct masinile
s intre #n cadru prin stnga Cacest lucru este asigurat de *apt de regisorul de emisieD. :n caz
contrar0 telespectatorii vor avea impresia c mainile alearg #n dierec"ii opuse.
;acordul de lumin. :n practic0acest racord se poate traduce ast*el= lumina a dou cadre
care se succed are aceeai totalitate0 aceeai intensitate0 aceeai *actur. /r *i suprrtor la
privit ca #ntr8un *ilm artistic sau #ntr8un documentar s e3iste varia"ii de luminozitate de la un
cadru la altul. .3ist i situa"ii cnd luminozitatea a dou cadre succesive tre$uie s *ie #n
contrast0 de e3emplu *ilmri #n e3terior i *ilmri la intrarea #ntr8o min.
;acordul de culoare. /cest gen de racord0 care poate *i considerat un caz particular al
racordului de lumin0 este umrit #n special #n produc"iile artistice de televiziune i mai pu"in
#n reporta&ele de tiri. .ste un tip de racord care urmrete ca dominanata de culoare dintr8un
cadru s *ie #n armonie cu dominanta de culoare din cadrul urmtor. >erespectarea acestei
recomandri poate crea impresia de Kpestri"@ sau0 la limit0 c)iar iluzia unei srituri #n cadru0
ceea ce este dezagrea$il la privit.
0ditarea nonlinear
.ditarea video cu a&utorul computerului reprezint0 intr8un *el0 o #ntoarcere la principiile
mesei de monta& #n pelicul. So*turile pro*esionale au *ost concepute pornind de la nevoile
%4
monteurului sau cum mai este denumit0 editorul de imagine0 o$isnuit s lucreze cu $uc"i de
pelicul. /st*el0 aa8numitul monta& non8linear nu este neaparat o revolu"ie #n monta&0 aa cum
ar putea prea la prima vedere. ,onta&ul linear0 $azat pe copierea materialului de pe o caset
pe alta era ceva neo$isnuit pentru editorul o$inuit cu opera"iile speci*ice peliculei i0 de
alt*el0 nu neaparat constructiv i *eza$il. ;evenind la compara"ia monta&ului nonlinear cu
monta&ul pe pelicul0 dac la masa de monta& pentru pelicul0 monteurul are un co #n care #i
"ine materialul $rut0 are o *oar*ec Cde *apt0 o g)ilotinD cu a&utorul creia taie *iecare cadru i
#n so*turile moderne de editare video vom gsi un bin C*ie ca se numete aa0 *ie ca se numete
basket sau media pool0 etcD0 vom avea o unealt cu sim$olul unei *oar*eci care are #ntotdeauna
o *unc"ie deose$it de clar= cut. :n cazul monta&ului nonlinear coul i pelicula sunt virtuale.
7rodusele so*t9are cele mai utilizate de ctre pro*esioniti sunt solu"iile /PI5 C,edia
1omposer0 Npress 7ro0 /drenaline0 etcD0 FI>/< 12! CFinal 1ut 7ro0 ,otion0 1ompressor0
etcD /5(6. C7remiere 7ro0 /*ter .**ectsD0 57S PelocitE.
:n mare0 toate aceste produse *ac cam acelai lucru= preluarea unui material video[audio
dintr8o surs oarecare0 editarea lui i apoi e3portul materialului *init pe un suport oarecare.
7n la urm0 di*eren"ele dintre un so*t i altul sunt relative0 adevrata di*eren"a o *ace cel care
le manipuleaz0 adic editorul de imagine CmonteurulD. <a *el cum i cu o camer de luat
vederi nepro*esional se pot *ilma imagini di*uza$ile la televiziune Ce3= #n special imaginile8
document0 Aorld !rade 1enter0 imagini de raz$oi0 etcD i so*turile de monta& pot *i suplinite0
la limit0 de programe de tipul )ome8user C!P; a implementat0 de alt*el0 *olosirea 7innacle
Studio pentru premonta&D. 6ine#n"eles0 un monta& comple3 are nevoie de o solutie so*t9are
pro*esional.
/vanta&ele programelor pro*esionale sunt=
L sta$ilitate nu sunt programe de tip all8in8one0 *iecare *ace un singur lucru dar #l
*ace $ineO
L *olosirea unor *ormate proprietare de *isiere0 *ormate lossless C*r pierdereD de
comprimare a materialului audio[videoO
L posi$ilitatea capturii din orice surs0 att analog ct i digital0 mai nou i )ig)
de*initionO
L posi$ilitatea capturii la o ra"ie de pn la 15=1 Ce3trem de util #n cazul *ilmelor de
lung metra&0 unde materialul $rut poate a&unge i la zeci de oreDO
L posi$ilitatea e*ecturii de corec"ii de culoare0 contrast0 luminozitate0 etcO
L editare #n timp real de tip multicamO
L control so*t9are al ec)ipamentelor )ard9are Ccasetoscoape0 mi3ere audio0 etcD.
5ezavanta&ele programelor pro*esionale sunt=
L sunt *oarte scumpe0 pentru un studio complet este nevoie de ac)izi"ionarea mai
multor programe pentru di*erite sarcini Cmonta&0 editare e*ecte0 procesare sunet0
titra&0 etcD
L sunt mari consumatoare de resurse )ard9are C#n general0 productorii o*er
con*igura"ii special concepute pentru *iecare program[suit de programeD0 de multe
ori necesit )ard9are suplimentar *a" de un 71 o$isnuit.
L unele dintre ele nu ruleaz pe orice plat*orm Ce3. Final 1ut 7ro ruleaza doar pe
sisteme ,ac0 nici unul nu ruleaz nativ pe <inu3D.
5escrierea inter*e"ei programului /PI5 N7;.SS 7;(=
5up cum am mai spus0 orice so*t pro*esional de monta& se $azeaz pe aceleai principii de
*unc"ionare0 di*eren"ele *iind de detaliu i de ergonomie. /vid Npress 7ro este pro$a$il cel mai
*olosit program de monta& in televiziune.
%5
/ceasta este *ereastra de lucru a programului /vid Npress 7ro. 7r"ile componente sunt=
L !imeline este *ereastra #n care se *ace monta&ul. Se o$serv cum cadrele sunt
aezate unul dup altul. .3ist piste video CP10 P20 P3D i piste audio C/10 /2D.
L :n stnga *erestrei !imeline este *ereastra proiectului care con"ine 6inuri
C?courile@ cu imagini0 monta&e0 muzic0 etcD0 setrile de proiect0 e*ecte Cta$8ul
desc)is #n imagine este cel de e*ecteD i )ard9are in*o. Fereastra se numete
?7oveti #ntunecate@0 pentru c aa se numete proiectul.
L Fereastra cu cele dou ecrane0 numit 1omposer este cea de vizualizare a
materialului. :n cea din stnga vizualizam materialul $rut0 #n cea din dreapta
materialul montat Ccorespunde *erestrei !imelineD.
L :n stnga *erestrei composer este desc)is un $in0 #n cazul nostru $inul numit
,onta&e >oi Ccon"ine monta&ele din acest proiectD.
L :ntre 1omposer i !imeline mai avem o *ereastr mic numit !imecode Aindo90
care ne o*er in*orma"ii despre codul de timp CtimecodeD al materialului.
%6
/cesta este spa"iul de lucru C9or4spaceD pentru corec"ii de culoare0 lumin0 etc. Se o$serv c
*erastra composer are acum trei ecrane0 pentru a putea *ace o compara"ie real #ntre cadrul
curent i cel precedent0 repectiv urmtorul. :ntre 1omposer i !imeline avem *ereastra care
con"ine controalele de corec"ii.
%-
/cest 9or4space este dedicat editrii sunetului. Fereastra 1omposer a rmas cu un singur
monitor Csunetul nu se vedeD i au aprut *erestrele=
L /udio !ool pentru vizualizarea nivelului sunetului.
L /udio ,i3 !ool pentru mi3area pistelor audio i a&ustarea nivelului #ntre ele.
L /utomation +ain pentru a&ustarea nivelului sunetului. 2n mi3a& *r preten"ii se
poate *ace cu aceste instrumente. 7entru e*ecte sonore0 adaugarea unui Poice8(ver0 etc tre$uie
s se *oloseasc un pupitru de procesare sunet cu un alt so*t C7ro !ools0 de e3empluD.
%%
/ceasta este *ereastra de captur. /tunci cnd se realizeaz captura0 se trec de *apt imaginile
*ilmate de pe caset #n )ard8ul sistemului de editare. 1aptura se poate *ace dup orice *ormat
de #nregistrare0 totul depinde de cte casetoscoape sunt disponi$ile la intrare. Se o$serv c a
aprut *ereastra intitulat 1apture !ool. 7rin intermediul acesteia se controleaz casetoscopul
i se capteaz materialul dorit Caudio0 video0 i video i audioD i i se d acestuia destina"ia C#n
ce $in va *i salvatD i *ormatul.
%'
2ltimul 9or4space este acesta0 care con"ine *ereastra 5igital 1ut !ool. 1u a&utorul acesteia
materialul montat este e3portat #napoi pe caset pentru a *i *olosit la emisie. P ve"i #ntre$a de
ce este nevoie e3poetarea produsului *init pe casetQ 7entru emisia la cele mai multe
televiziuni din ;omnia se *ace utiliznd casetoscoape0 #n sistem analogic0 pentru c recep"ia
prin anten este analogic.
Atilizarea luminii n cinematogra8ie i televiziune
!eleviziunea $ene*iciaz i #n domeniul utilizrii luminii de e3perien"a acumulat de
cinematogra*ie0 #n cei apro3imativ 50 de avans pe care8i are cea de8a aptea art. :n
cinematogra*ie se spune c Karta cinematogra*ic este #n esen" arta utilizrii luminii care
tre$uie s spun singur povestea@.
5'
Filmul +itizen Mane al lui (rson Aells este o
capodoper a utilizrii luminii i acolo este evident *aptul c lumina Kspune povestea@. Ri #n
televiziune pentru a o$"ine o imagine de calitate0 scenele *ilmate tre$uie s $ene*icieze de
lumin su*icient. >u este util nici lumina #n e3ces0 ceea ce va duce la o imagine Kars@0 nici
de*icitul de lumin0 care poate genera o imagine #ntunecoas0 *r volum0 *r e3presivitate.
<umina poate accentua0 poate #ntri anumite detalii ale imaginii sau dimpotriv0 poate s
le ascund pe cele mai pu"in atractive. /desea0 lumina poate comunica o prezen" ostil #n
cadru. !eleviziunea se $azeaz *undamental pe capacitatea de iluminare a scenelor *ilmate.
5atorit dezvoltrii ec)ipamentelor digitale0 iluminarea scenelor *ilmate a devenit mai pu"in
important pentru domeniul tirilor0 unde in*orma"ia este mai important dect ra*inamentul
artistic al cadrului0 ra*inament o$"inut printr8o iluminare special. :n televiziune0 apari"ia
5'
Step)en B. 6urum0 /S10 e3pert #n lumini pentru *ilmele /pocalEpse >o90 1arlitoSs AaE0 ,ission
Impossi$le0 6odE 5ou$le0 <i*e or Somet)ing0 <i4e It0 etc. )ttp=[[999.cE$ercollege.com
'0
te)nologiei B5!P Cteleviziunea de #nalt de*ini"ieD va duce la dispari"ia treptat a utilizrii
*ilmului de 35 de mm c)iar i pentru *ilmele artistice0 va permite *ilmri artistice deose$ite
care nu puteau *i *cute cu te)nologia o$inuit de televiziune Canaligic0 625 de linii 7/< sau
525 linii >!S1D0 ceea ce va duce la creterea importan"ei utilizrii luminii #n televiziune.
7entru a putea utiliza e*icient lumina0 tre$uie studiate cele trei caracteristici de $az ale
luminii=
L contrastul sau coerena JcoherenceK
L temperatura de culoare Jcolor temperatureK
L intensitatea Jintensit'K
Contrastul sau coerena luminii Bco%erenceC
1oeren"a luminii este mai este cunoscut #n literatura de specialitate i su$ denumirea de
calitatea luminii. :n practica romneasc termenul de contrast este mai cunoscut termenul de
constrast.
/ceast caracteristic de $az a luminii prezint dou varia$ile= lumina dur )ard lig)t i
so*t lig)t lumin di*uz0 lipsit de contrast.
<umina dur este transmis direct de la o surs puncti*orm0 care genereaz o lumin
coerent0 cu raze paralele. /cest mod de generare a luminii care este proiectat #n cadru0
con*er imginii caracteristica de duritate C)ardD0 de imagine precis0 e3act. <umina de un $ec
cu sticl clar0 nemtuit0 un spot de lumin concentrat sau lumina soarelui la prnz0 cu un
cer neacoperit de nori0 toate reprezint surse dure de lumin. <umina dur modeleaz o um$r
e3act0 cu conturul $ine de*init. 1nd se *olosete o surs de lumin dur pentru a ilumina un
c)ip uman0 toate imper*ec"iunile pielii ies la iveal. Imaginea rezultat este mai pu"in
aspectuoas. :ns sunt cazuri #n care din motive artistice sau editoriale Cne re*erim #n special la
*ilmele documentareD se urmrete punerea #n eviden" a te3turii pielii sau a unui material. :n
alte cazuri se poate urmri punerea #n eviden" a elementelor gravate pe o $i&uterie sau pe un
o$iect important. :n aceste cazuri este avanta&os utilizarea unei surse de lumin dur. 5e
e3emplu0 la *ilmrile *cute pentru un documentar di*uzat de >ational +eogra*ic0 a *ost
utilizat lumina dur pentru a pune #n eviden" cele mai mici detalii ale o$iectelor descoperite
#n mormntul lui !utan4amon.
<umina di*uz so*t lig)t are e*ecte artistice inverse luminii dure i se o$"ine prin
plasarea #n *a"a re*lectorului cu lumin dur a unui material semitransparent0 care asigur
di*uzarea0 #mprtierea luminii. /cest material asigur de asemena i reducerea intensit"ii
luminii. <umina di*uz se mai poate o$"ine prin utilizarea unei surse de lumin care lumineaz
o um$rel acoperit cu material re*lectorizant0 care K#mprtie@ lumina #n cadru. Sursele de
lumin di*uz sunt *olosite pentru a crea un spa"iu luminos0 transparent. :ntruct sursele de
lumin di*uz tind s ascund liniile neregulate0 s$rciturile *e"ei0 lipsurile0 stigmatele unui
c)ip0 este recomanda$il ca aceste surse s *ie *olosite #n cazurile #n care #n care se dorete
o$"inerea unui e*ect de *ascina"ie0 de atrac"ie0 de mister. ( surs de lumin di*uz plasat #n
apropierea unei camere video care *ilmeaz0 minimalizeaz detaliile unei supra*e"e. /cest mod
de iluminare mai este cunoscut i su$ denumirea de flat lighting.
<umina di*uz mai are o variant cunoscut su$ denumirea de ultra-soft light sau lumina
ultradifuz.. Sunt anumite situa"ii0 cei drept mai reduse ca numr0 #n care este nevoie s nu se
piard anumite detalii0 #n special la o$iectele transparente0 din sticl i de asemenea este
nevoie s nu se depeasc posi$ilit"ile ec)ipamentului video de a realiza un contrast e*icient
#n aceste situa"ii. :n cazul o$iectelor din sticl0 dac am *olosi surse dure de lumin0 anumite
detalii ale o$iectelor s8ar pierde pentru c ar aprea zone puternice de um$r ca urmare a
multiplelor re*le3ii ale luminii. :n aceste cazuri0 c#mpul de *ilmare se acoper cu o pnz al$0
lsnd doar un mic spa"iu prin care o$iectivul camerei video s poat *ilma. Iluminarea se va
realiza cu trei surse dure de lumin0 plasate #n diverse ung)iuri0 #n e3teriorul cmpului
'1
acoperit de pnza al$. Su$ pnza al$ se va o$"ine o lumin ultradi*uz care va eviden"ia cele
mai *ine detalii ale o$iectelor *ilmate.
Temperatura de culoare
5ei a doua caracteristic de $az a luminii0 temperatura de culoare se re*er la
componentele luminii al$e0 culorile0 putem #n"elege mai $ine con"inutul acestei caracteristici
dac alturm dou imagini *ilmate #n lumin natural i #n lumin al$ produs de o surs
dur. Pom o$serva c e3ist di*eren"e de nuan"e la culorile o$iectelor care apar #n cadru. 5in
acest motiv0 *ilmele artistice0 #n procesul de postproduc"ie0 *ilmate pe pelicul0 sunt supuse
unui proces de corec"ie scenele care sunt montate #mpreun0 pentru a nu aprea di*eren"e
suprtoare de culoare.
<umina soarelui i lumina unui $ec cu incandescen" sunt percepute de oc)iul uman ca
lumin al$. <umina0 care poate *i orice radia"ie cuprins #ntre spectrul in*rarou i spectrul
ultraviolet0 are dou standarde de culoare= 3200 de grade Ielvin pentru lmpile cu surs
incandescent i 5.500 de grade Ielvin pentru lumina de zi medie. 5e *apt lumina soarelui0 la
prnz variaz #ntre 6.000 de grade Ielvin0 #n *unc"ie de anumite condi"ii= poluare0
longitudinea i latitudinea locului0 momentului. 5e8a lungul unei zile putem o$serva c
temperatura de culoare variaz pentru c lumina soarelui parcurge un drum mai scut sau mai
lung prin atmos*er. 5iminea"a i seara0 razele soarelui parcurg un drum mai lung prin
atmos*er0 ceea #nseamn c radi"a al$astr este a$sor$it #n atmos*er mai mult dect radia"ia
de lumin roie. ;ezultatul este o imagine virat #n rou #n cazul #n care *ilmm #n aceste
perioade ale zilei. 7entru compara"ie0 notm *aptul c un $ec cu incandescen" cu o putere de
100 9a"i produce o lumin ec)ivalent cu 2.%50 grade Ielvin CID0 iar o lumnare produce o
lumin ec)ivalent cu 1.'00 I. 5ac *olosim pentru iluminare tu$uri cu lumin *luorescent0
temperatura de culoare medie a acestor surse este de 6.500 I. 5ac ne re*erim la temperatura
de culoare pentru c cele apro3imativ 30 de tipuri de tu$uri *luorescente0vom constata ca
acestea produc o temperatur de culoare cuprins #ntre 6.500 I i pu"in su$ 3.000 I.
!empratura de culoare este important i pentru standardele pentru reglarea monitoarelor
i a televizoarelor. ,onitoarele pro*esionale sunt reglate pentru a reada lumina al$ la 6.500
de grade Ielvin. !otui0 temperatura de culoare la care sunt reglate cele mai multe televizoare
este mult mai mare0 -.100 I #n S2/ i '.300 I #n Waponia. !elevizoarele v#ndute #n cele mai
multe "ri europene sunt reglate la o temperatur de culoare mai apropiat de 6.500 I.
Intensitatea luminii
/ treia caracteristic de $az a luminii este intensitatea lig)t intensitE. 1ontrolul
intensit"ii luminii sau a cantit"ii de lumin reprezint o preocupare de $az #n produc"iile din
categoria dram. Intensitatea sau cantitatea de lumin este msurat #n candela #n S2/ C*oot8
candlesD sau #n lu30 #n cele mai multe "ri. 2n *oot8candle este ec)ivalent cu apro3mativ 100-4
lu3. 7entru a #n"elege mai $ine acest paramentru al luminii0 prezentm urmroarele
compara"ii=
Llumina soarelui variaz #ntre 32.000 lu3 i 100.000 lu3.
Llumina din studiouri are apro3imativ 1.000 lu3
Lun $irou $ine iluminat are 400 lu3.
Llumina <unii reprezint apro3imati3 1 lu3.
Llumina stelelor are o intensitate de pro3imativ 00 00005 lu3.
1ele mai multe camere video au nevoie de o lumin cu o intensitate de 1.000 lu3 pentru a
produce o imagine de $un calitate. <a #nceputurile televiziunii color0 a crescut necesitatea de
iluminare a studiourilor la cel pu"in 300 de *oot8candles sau ceva mai mult de 3.000 lu3.
5atorit evolu"iei te)nologice0 aceast necesitate de iluminare a sczut continuu. /stzi0 o
camer video poate produce o imagine video de calitate i la mai pu"in de 10 lu3.
'2
<umina poate *i de dou *eluri=
8lumina naturalO
8lumina arti*icial0 emis de corpurile de iluminat0 avnd ca surs de energie curentul electric.
Iluminatul unei scene se realizeaz cu mai multe surse0 e3istnd o sc)em clasic a
iluminatului #n trei puncte. :n *unc"ie de direc"ia *ascicolului de lumin0 natural sau arti*icial0
pot *i identi*icate dou tipuri de lumin=
8lumina direct0 produs de un $ec0 un neon0 etc. Sursa este #n acest caz puncti*orm i
generaz o lumin dur0 cu contraste *oarte puternice ale o$iectului *ilmat.
8lumina di*uz0 generat de o supa*a" luminoas0 care poate *i uneori re*lectorizant. <umina
di*uz poate *i o$"inut i prin re*lectarea luminii naturale de o supra*a" metalizat0
asemntoare um$relelelor de studio.
Sursele de lumin arti*icial utilizate pentru iluminarea unei scene sunt urmtoarele=
1. <umina principal C4eE lig)tD. :n cadrul procesului de iluminare a unui studio0 este cea mai
important surs de lumin arti*icial0 pentru c #n *unc"ie de aceast surs sunt cali$rate
celelalte surse. <umina principal pate *i direct sau di*uz0 #n *unc"ie de necesit"ile artistice
ale produc"iei respective. <umina principal este plasat #n *a"a su$iectului0 #ndreptat ctre
su$iect0 deasupra su$iectului0 #nclinat la un ung)i ce variaz #ntre 30 i 60 de grade *a" de
a3a optic a camerei video. 2zual0 o ve"i #ntlni aezat la 45 de grade.
2. <umina de contur C$ac4 lig)tD. Sursa care generaz lumina de contur este plasat #n spatele
persona&ului *ilmat0 orientat ctre camera video. Func"ia acestei surse0 aa cum indic c)iar
denumirea sa0 este aceea de a crea volum0 de a accentua conturului persona&ului i a8l detaa
de decor0 de *undal. /ceast necesitate a spa"ialit"ii corecteaz o de*icien" speci*ic imaginii
Kelectronice@0 aceea a a$sen"ei pro*unzimii0 ceea ce nu se #ntmpl la imaginile pe *ilm.
/$sen"a pro*unzimii mai este compensat i prin compozi"ia cadrului Caspect prezentat la
capitolul respectivD. <umina de contur este aezat la #nl"ime0 #n spatele persoanei *ilmate0
#nclinat la 45 pn la 60 de grade *a" de orizonal Cca un avion care vine la aterizareD.
3. <umina de modelare C*ill lig)tD. <umina de modelare corecteaz um$rele induse de celelalte
dou surse de lumin0 #n special um$rele de pe *a"a persoanei *ilmate. 1a intensitate0 lumina
de modelare este mai redus dect celelalte dou surse. <umina de modelare di*uz se o$"ine
montnd #n *a"a re*lectorului o plac transparent care #mprtie lumina Kconcentrat@0
generat de sursa de lumin. Sursa care generaz lumina de modelare este amplasat #n *a"a
persoanei *ilmate0 simetric *a" de lumina principal C#n manualele de utilizare a surselor de
lumin se recomand un ung)i de 60 pn la 120 de grade *a" de lumina principal0 #ns cea
care decide pn la urm este geogra*ia locului de *ilmareD.
4. <umina de *undal. Sursele care genereaz lumina de *undal lumineaz pere"ii decorurilor0
#n speciale a decorurilor a*late #n planuri deprtate0 pentru a su$linia spa"ialitatea locului unde
se *ilmeaz i pentru a su$linia conturul persona&ului *ilmat.
5. <umina de e*ect este o surs luminoas a*lat #n cadru0 care poate *i o lamp0 o veioz0 un
e*ect luminos0 etc.
1ele mai importante surse de lumin sunt primele trei0 care pot asigura o iluminare corect
a persona&ului *ilmat. :n literatura de specialitate e3ist #ncet"enit e3presia Kiluminarea #n
trei puncte@0 care se re*er evident la primele trei seurse de lumin prezentate #n acest capitol.
'3
Culorile i televiziunea
<umea pe care o percepem #n &urul nostru este colorat i de8a lungul timpului au *ost
multe #ncercri #n vederea e3plicrii *enomenului culorilor. 7rimul care a dat o e3plica"ie
tiin"i*ic a *ost Issac >e9ton C1642 8 1-2-D0 printele *izicii clasice.
.3perimentul lui >e9ton poate *i rezumat ast*el= un *ascicol de lumin care trece printr8o
prism de cristal este descompus #n culorile de $az= rou0 orange sau portocaliu0 verde0
al$astru0 indigo sau violet. /cronimul culorilor de $az din care este alctuit lumina al$ este
;(+P/IP.
7rima concluzie a acestui e3periment este *aptul c lumina al$ este *ormat din *ascicule
de lumin colorat0 *iecare dintre acestea *iind radia"ii cu lungimi de und speci*ice. :n cele
mai multe dintre situa"ii oc)iul uman percepe doar o culoare. 1nd lumina natural al$
#ntlnete o supra*a" care are o anumit culoare0 de e3emplu rou0 supra*a"a respectiv
a$soar$e culoarea respectiv0 re*lectnd restul *asciculelor. /st*el culoarea este o senza"ie
primit de oc)iul uman0 care este transmis apoi creierului. /ceste semnale primite de oc)iul
uman depind de mai mul"i *actori dintre care cei mai importan"i sunt urmtorii=
1. Structura supra*e"ei care re"ine anumite radia"ii i le re*lect pe altele.
2. !ipul de lumin care ilumineaz supra*a"a respectiv Canumite o$iecte sau materiale au
o anumit culoare privite #n lumin natural i alt culoare dac sunt privite #n lumin
o$"inut cu a&utorul tu$urilor *luorescenteD.
3. 1alitatea oc)iului uman #nsui in*luen"eaz rezultatele percep"iei culorilor. Sunt
persoane care din cauza unor de*ec"iuni genetice nu percep anumite culori. 1el mai
cunoscut caz este cel al Kdaltonitilor@ care nu vd culoarea roie0 a*ec"iune
periculoas dac persoana respeciv lucreaz #ntr8un mediu #n care culoarea roie este
de re*erin" Csisteme de avertizareD.
S8a o$servat #n timp c percep"ia unei anumite culori di*er de la o persoan la alta. 7rimul
care a pus #n eviden" aceste *enomen a *ost cercettorul i pictorul american Iose* /l$eers
C1%%% 1'-6D. Studiul su a *ost realizat pe 50 de studen"i i a reuit s pun #n eviden"
di*eren"ele de percep"ie pentru aceeai culoare i implicit *aptul c oc)iul uman se poate #nela
#n privin"a culorilor. 5ac din anumite motive avem nevoie s tim care este culoarea e3act a
unui material sau a unei supra*e"e0 acest lucru se poate o$"ine cu instrumente de masur a
radia"iilor luminoase.
:n mod *iresc oamenii nu percep culorile izolate0 ci asociate cu alte culori. /socierea
culorilor0 din cauza speci*icului percep"iei vizuale umane0 creeat puternice #nter*eren"e #n
aprecierea o$iectelor sau a supra*e"elor. /s*el0 un ptrat al$ pe *ond negru pare mult mai mare
dect un ptrat negru pe *ond al$0 cele dou ptrate avnd e3act aceeai dimensiune. Impresia
*als este indus de *aptul c ptratul al$0 re*lectnd mai mult radia"ie pare c se e3tinde. :n
sc)im$0 ptratul negru0 re*lectnd mai pu"in radia"ie0 pare c se contract0 #n timp ce *ondul
al$ creeaz senza"ia de e3pansiune. Iluziile optice create de modul de receptare a culorilor au
*ost *olosite de pictori pentru a reda pe o supra*a" plan0 #n dou dimensiuni0 cea de8a treia
dimensiune a spa"iului. 2lterior0 aceste iluzii optice rezultate din percep"ia culorilor utilizate
#n artele plastice au *ost preluate de cinematogra*ie i ulterior de televiziune. !e)nica de
iluminare a unui studio poate crea iluzia unor spa"ii deose$ite i implicit o imagine atractiv
pentru telespectatori.
/socierea culorilor #n anumite situa"ii este deose$it de important pentru a o$"ine anumite
e*ecte. /"i o$servat0 de e3emplu0 c anumite "esturi imprimate0 dup o scurt privire0 creeaz
impresia de armonie coloristic0 *r a avea o e3plica"ie concret. Fenomenul se $azeaz pe o
'4
anumit rela"ie0 o anumit simetrie a culorilor care se altur. /cele culori #ntre care e3ist o
anumit rela"ie se numesc culori complementare i pot *i #ntlnite peste tot #n natur.
;ela"ia complementar #ntre anumite culori a *ost o$servat de8a lungul timpului de mai
mul"i oameni de cultur i artiti. 7lim$ndu8se prin gradinile regale0 Wo)ann Aol*gang
+oet)e C1-4' 1%32D a remarcat c *lorile care erau gal$ene pe partea luminat0 cptau
nuan"e de violet #n zona um$rit a acestora.
60
+oet)e este cel care a *olosit pentru #ntia oar
sintagma Kteoria culorilor@ #ntr8un manuscris a*lat acum la $i$lioteca din +ottingen.
61
:n anul
1-'3 el a pus $azele cercului su cromatic0 care urma s ordoneze esen"a culorilor i s
conduc spre legile elementare ale acesteia. 1ea mai important contri$u"ie a cercului
cromatic al lui +oet)e este *aptul c a demonstrat c toate culorile cunoscute pot *i o$"inute
prin amescul #n di*erite propor"ii a trei culori0 denumite primare sau *undamentale= rou0
gal$en i al$astru. :ns nu toate orice rou0 gal$en sau al$astru pot da prin amestec celelalte
culori. Fundamentale sunt doar primare sunt doar rou purpuriu desc)is denumit ,agenta0
gal$enul de crom i al$astrul numit de 7rusia sau cianic Cculoarea *erocianurii de *ierD. K!eoria
lui +oet)e este vala$il pentru culorile pigmentare Cvopselurile de orice *el realizate cu
a&utorul pigmen"ilor0 cum sunt vopselurile pentru pictur0 acuarelele0 tempera0 ulei0 vopselurile
industrialeD. 7entru culorile rezultate din luminile colorate C*olosite #n produc"ia de *ilme i de
televiziune0 #n teatruD culorile primare sunt rou0 verde i al$astru.@
62
:n te)nica *otogra*iei i #n cinematogra*ie0 culorile sunt o$"inute prin metoda su$stractiv.
,etoda #n sine const #n plasarea de *iltre colorate #n *a"a re*lectoarelor0 care e3trag anumite
culori din lumina al$ generat de acestea. :n *elul acesta se o$"ine modi*icarea compozi"iei
spectrale a radia"iei luminoase a sursei de $az cu a&utorul unor medii a$sor$ante de lumin.
K/st*el0 re*lectoarele pot *i acoperite cu trei *iltre cu straturi a$sor$ante ast*el= gal$en CTD0
magenta C,D i turcoaz C1D0 adic cele trei culori complementare culorilor de re*erin"0 6
Cal$astruD0 + CverdeD0 ; CrouD.@
63
Filtrul gal$en a$soar$e radia"ia al$astr i las s treac
radia"iile verde i rou Ccare com$inate dau culoarea gal$enD. 5ac acoperim un re*lector cu
toate cele trei *iltre0 rezultatul va *i negru0 deoarece vor *i a$sor$ite toate radia"iile.
:n televiziune0 orice culoare0 indi*erent de nuan"0 se poate o$"ine prin mi3area a trei
radia"ii luminoase0 monocromatice0 situate #n domeniile spectrale rou0 verde i al$astru.
/ceste domenii nu sunt alese #ntmpltor. .le sunt domeniile de sensi$ilitate a conurilor
luminoase de pe retina uman. Singura condi"ie pentru aceste culori este aceea de a *i
independente0 adic niciuna s nu poat *i o$"inut din amestecul celorlalte dou.
7entru a avea un sistem de re*erin" unic0 #n anul 1'31 1omisia Interna"ional de
Iluminare a ales un sistem colorimetric unic0 #n care culorile de re*erin" sunt de*inite prin
urmtoarelelungimi de und=
64
;ou C;D -00 nm
Perde C+D 54601 nm
/l$astru C6D 4350% nm
:n de*inirea culorii se #ntlnesc dou categorii de *actori0 su$iectivi i o$iectivi. Factorii
su$iectivi au #n vedere senza"ia de culoare generat de celulele *otosensi$ile de pe retina
uman. 5in aceast cauz0 persoane di*erite pot percepe aceeai culoare0 dar nuan"e di*erite.
Factorii su$iectivi care de*inesc o culoare sunt strlucirea, nuana i saturaia. Factorii
60
Aol*gang Wo)ann +oet)e0 5espre teoria culorilor= 7artea didactic0 .ditura .conomic0 6ucureti0 20050 pp.
150 1%5
61
id.0 p. 13.
62
1onstantin 7aul0 S vor$im despre culori0 .ditura Ion 1reang0 6ucureti0 1'%60 p. 4
63
,itro*an +)eorg)e0 !eleviziune0 de la videocamer la monitor0 .ditura !eora0 6ucureti0 1''60 pp. 52 8 53
'5
o$iectivi care de*inesc culoarea #n televiziune sunt luminana, lungimea de und dominant i
puritatea.
AL
K<ungimea de und dominant reprezint lungimea de und a culorii monocromatice
CspectraleD care0 amestecat #n anumite propor"ii cu culoarea al$0 d aceeai senza"ie de
culoare ca i radia"ia ini"ial. >uan"a culorii Ccorespondentul psi)osenzorial al lungimii de
und dominanteD reprezint acea particularitate a culorii dup care ea este asociat unei
anumite regiuni a spectrului de *recven" i care permite s se dea unei culori o denumire.
7uritatea culorii reprezint acea cantitate de culoare monocromatic CspectralD care
adugat culorii al$e d aceeai senza"ie ca i radia"ia ini"ial. Satura"ia Ccorespondentul
psi)osenzorial al purit"iiD reprezint gradul de deose$ire dintre culoarea cromatic dat i
culoarea al$ de aceeai strlucire. Satura"ia culorii se caractrizeaz prin amestecul de culoare
al$ #n culoarea dat= cu ct propor"ia de al$ este mai redus0 cu att culoarea este mai vie0
mai saturat. 1ulorile monocromatice spectrale sunt culori pure pentru c nu con"in culoarea
al$0 deci sunt culori saturate. ,a&oritatea culorilor din natur con"in culoarea al$0 #n
consecin" sunt culori diluate0 cunoscute su$ denumirea de culori pastel.@
66
!eleviziunea color se $azeaz pe teoria vederii tricrome. 1on*orm acestei teorii0 celulele
sensi$ile la culoare din interiorul oc)iului uman0 amplasate pe retin0 conurile0 se #mpart #n
trei categorii=
L celule sensi$ile la radia"ia luminii roii0 cu lungimea de und ma3im de 5%0 nmO
L celule sensi$ile la radia"ia luminii verzi0 cu lungimea de und ma3im de 540 nmO
L celule sensi$ile la radia"ia luminii al$astre0 cu lungimea de und ma3im de 440 nmO
Identi*icarea culorilor se realizeaz prin ac"iunea com$inat a celor trei tipuri de celule0
com$inarea semnalelor *iind realizat la nivelul scoar"ei cere$rale.
7entru cei care realizeaz *ilme0 emisiuni de televiziune0 este *oarte important s #n"eleag
mecanismul receptrii culorilor de ctre telespectatori. /socierea diverselor culori #n cmpul
de *ilmare presupune o anumit adaptare a oc)iului telespectatorului0 care #n anumite situa"ii
poate avea reac"ii #neltoare=
L prezen"a #n cmpul vizual a corpurilor de culori di*erite poate altera contrastul vizual
prin percep"ia modi*icat a strlucirilor0 nuan"elor i satura"iilor. 5e e3emplu0
o$iectele privite pe *ond #nc)is par mai luminoase0 iar cele privite pe *ond luminos par
mai #ntunecate.
L dou culori alturate0 cu luminan"e di*erite0 sunt percepute ca avnd un contrast de
culoare mai mare de cnd este #n realitate. 5e e3emplu0 un $leu luminat normal lng
un al$astru strlucitor pare verzui Ca crescut contrastul de culoare deoarece verdele
este mai #ndeprtat *a" de al$astru dect culoarea $leuD.
L modi*icarea percep"iei unei culori su$ in*luen"a altei culori are loc su$ in*luen"a altei
culori are loc i cnd am$ele culori au aceeai nuan"0 dar di*er prin satura"ie. :n
acest caz nuan"a culorii cu satura"ie mai mic vireaz ctre culoarea sa
complementar.
L unul i acelai o$iect aezat pe *onduri de culori di*erite este perceput ca avnd nuan"e
di*erite. 5e pild0 un o$iect gri pe *ond rou este perceput ca *iind verzui0 pe *ond
al$astru pare gl$ui0 iar pe *od verde pare rocat.
65
,itro*an +)eorg)e0 !eleviziune0 de la videocamer la monitor0 .ditura !eora0 6ucureti0 1''60 p. 2'
66
Id.0
'6
Interviul
Interviul este una dintre activit"ile comple3e la care &urnalistul tre$uie s *ac *a" cu
succes. Interviul pentru radio i televiziune cere a$ilit"i suplimentare0 inclusiv voce i
prezen" video. 5e8a lungul timpului0 e3perien"a de teren a eviden"iat cteva reguli generale
care tre$uie urmate pentru a realiza un interviu de succes. >erespectarea recomandrilor pe
care le vom prezenta #n continuare0 atrage riscuri pro*esionale mari pentru &urnalist. 1el mai
grav lucru este pierderea credi$ilit"ii si odat cu aceasta0 locul de munc. ;ecomandrile
generale privind realizarea unui interviu sunt utile i celor care dau interviuri #ntruct tre$uie
s cunoasc #n primul rnd necesit"ile editoriale0 condi"iile de di*uzare0 pentru a *ace *a"
intervievatorului i pentru a8i proiecta o imagine pu$lic #n acord cu aspira"iile sale i cu
pozi"ia social. Interviul este pro$a$il cel mai di*icil gen &urnalistic care presupune o mare
e3perien" pro*esional i un gen de credi$ilitate care poate *i dat doar de o vrst
?credi$il@. 1)iar i #n peisa&ul &urnalistic interna"ional0 nu se #ntlnesc prea multe emisiuni
memora$ile de acest gen. /mintim aici emisiunea lui <arrE Iing de la 1>>0 pe 5avid Frost0
pe !im Se$astien de la 661 Aorld Service cu emisiunea Bard !al4s0 pe >ic4 +o9ing0 tot de
la 661 Aorld Service. 5esigur0 e3ist di*erite teorii i puncte de vedere ale pro*esionitilor
privind *elul #n care tre$uie *cut un interviu. 5intre numeroasele opinii0 mrturii e3primate
pe marginea acestui su$iect0 cele ale lui <arrE Iing ni s8au prut deose$it de relevante.@,
gndesc la emisiunea mea de la 1>> ca la o conversa"ie care se des*oar0 din #ntmplare0 #n
*a"a camerei de luat vederi. >u m gndesc la ea ca la o con*runtare. 5in acest punct de
vedere sunt di*erit *a" de al"i intervievatori0 ca Sam 5onaldson0 de e3emplu. >u cred c
tre$uie s vii #n #nt"mpinarea invitatului tu ca la atac sau ca un procuror general0 cu scopul de
a o$"ine rspunsuri sigure i pline de su$stan". 7re*er s *iu ama$il0 s8i atrag spre teme
personale i0 ast*el0 s conduc un interviu care va *i interesant i in*ormativ. >u8mi *olosete
nici mie0 nici invitatului meu dac interviul nu spune nimic pu$licului largO #n concluzie0 el
tre$uie s o*ere in*orma"ii. 5ar nu se poate dac el #nsui nu este interesant0 cci alt*el0
telespectatorii vor lua telecomanda i vor sc)im$a canalul@.
6-
;eporterul care aspir s
realizeze interviuri tre$uie s se per*ec"ioneze continuu0 indi**erent de nivelul de e3perien".
?Franc)e"ea0 entuziasmul i dorin"a de a asculta0 vor *ace din tine un maestru al conversa"iei #n
orice ocazie. Ri *ie c te adresezi unui grup de 12 persoane #ntr8un sediu al unei comunit"i0 *ie
c "ii o telecon*erin" prin satelit0 lucrurile nu sunt la *el ca atunci cnd te adresezi unui grup.
7regtirea0 cunoaterea pu$licului i simplitatea discursului te vor a&uta s o$"ii succesul ca
vor$itorX.. 7utem s ne per*ec"ionm *elul de a vor$i i s o$"inem succesul i #ncrederea
care vin odat cu per*ec"ionarea@.
6%
2eguli generale pentru realizarea interviului
1. Wurnalistul tre$uie s *ie un mediator neutru0 neimplicat0 dar e3igent i uneori neierttor.
/"i remarcat adesea c0 utiliznd instrumentele pro*esionale clasice0 &urnalistul are
rareori ocazia s se plaseze #ntr8o postur de o$servator direct al evenimentelor. 5e multe ori0
el are di*icila sarcin de a reconstrui *aptele. 7entru aceast reconstruc"ie a realit"ii0 interviul
este un pre"ios instrument de lucru. 1u e3cep"ia situa"iilor in care &urnalistul este martor direct
al evenimentelor0 &urnalistul se poate adresa participan"ilor0 martorilor oculari0 ai unui
6-
Iing <arrE0 Secretele comunicrii, pag. ?9 - "E, .ditura /maltea0 6ucureti0 1'''.
Sam 5onaldson a *ost mai mul"i ani corespondent la 1asa /$ al re"elei de televiziune /610 cotat mult vreme
cea mai important re"ea de televiziune generalist din S2/0 #naintea 16S i >61.
6%
id0 pag. 155 156.
'-
eveniment sau e3per"ilor care de"in in*orma"ii utile. /st*el0 &urnalistul are la dispozi"ie nu doar
in*orma"ii0 considerate #n general o$iective0 cum sunt *aptele0 ci*rele0 analizele0 ci i impresii0
sentimente0 opinii i c)iar anecdote.
:ntre un &urnalist i un intervievat se sta$ilete o rela"ie special. Intervievatul este li$er sa
rspund i0 uneori0 s tac0 este li$er s8i aleag in*orma"iile pe care dorete s le *ac
pu$lice. Uiaristul din *a"a sa cere mai mult dect totul0 vor$ind ct mai pu"in posi$il. .l este
investit cu o sarcin important0 aceea de a *i mediator #ntre realitate i pu$lic0 utiliznd ca
instrument de lucru #ntre$rile i neuitnd nici un moment interesul mriei sale0
telespectatorul sau asculttorul.
1um poate *i neutru &urnalistul #n #ntre$rile saleQ .l nu tre$uie s mani*este a priori vreo
idee asupra realittii investigate. >ici un sentiment de ostilitate sau de complezen"0 de
sus"inere a intervievatului nu tre$uie s rz$at din #ntre$rile sale. Wurnalistul #ntrea$ #n
numele telespectatorilor. /ceast regul tre$uie s se re*lecte #n modul de *ormulare a
#ntre$rilor0 #n in*orma"iile aduse #n discu"ie0 care sunt pu$lice.
1um poate *i &urnalistul un mediator e3igentQ 1ondi"ia este *oarte greu de #ndeplinit mai
ales #n dez$aterile electorale. Wurnalistul poate s nu tie nimic sau aproape totul despre
su$iectul a$ordat. Indi*erent de situa"ie0 el tre$uie s8i e3prime dorin"a de a*la0 de a avansa
din #ntre$are #n #ntre$are i din rspuns #n rspuns0 aa cum urci o scar0 treapt cu treapt0
pentru a pune #n valoare cunotin"ele0 in*orma"iile interlocutorului.
1eea ce distinge *undamental &urnalistul de un poli"ist0 de un &udector sau de un procuror
este *aptul c el nu caut s8i pun su$ acuzare interlocutorul. 1eea ce nu #nseamn c el
renun" la a8l plasa pe interlocutor0 #n cursul interviului0 #n contradic"ie cu sine #nsui. :n
s*rit0 toate contradic"iile0 toate disimulrile0 evidente din rspunsurile intevievatului tre$uie
su$liniate cu gri&. !otodat0 neadevrurile evidente0 enun"ate de un invitat0 tre$uie
sanc"ionate printr8o pro$0 dac este posi$il0 sau mcar printr8o #ntre$are du$itativ0 ceea ce
nu este #ntotdeauna uor.
2. Wurnalistul tre$uie s cunoasc *oarte $ine su$iectul pe care #l a$ordeaz.
( persoan intervievat #i &usi*ic prezen"a #n emisiune prin legtura pe care o are cu un
eveniment0 cu un *apt0 unde este actor0 martor sau specialist. :n anumite manuale de &urnalism
se apreciaz *aptul c tendin"a de utiliza o in*orma"ie ct mai complet este mai mult
deran&ant dect util0 putnd s8l *ac pe realizator s se piard #n amnunte. ($serva"ia
merit aten"ie mai ales #n audiovizual0 care se $azeaz esen"ial pe mesa&e emo"ionale i nu pe
ra"iune. /ceast opinie poate prea a$uziv0 dar0 ca orice disput0 e3ist i o cale de mi&loc.
Interviul luat unui invitat #n platou se *ace atunci cnd un eveniment nu poate *i tratat #ntro
anc)et sau reporta& i interviul este singurul instrument de care $ene*iciaz &urnalistul. 1nd0
de e3emplu0 tema #n discu"ie se re*er la copiii maltrata"i0 nu pot *i utilizate nici imaginile si
nici sunetul original.:n acest caz0 prezen"a alturi de prezentator a unui &urnalist specializat
este cea mai indicat solu"ie. .ste o practic rspndit0 prezentatorul punnd #ntre$rile cele
mai evidente0 cele mai generale.
3. :ncadrarea evenimentului de ctre ziarist
1on*orm acestei reguli0 interviul este plasat #ntr8un cadru $ine de*init #n raport cu
actualitatea0 evenimentul este o ocazie pentru plasarea interviului . / cunoate totul despre o
situa"ie0 #n cazul interviului0 nu #nsemn c vom a$orda toate aspectele0 #n manier e3)austiv.
1unoaterea constituie doar o garan"ie0 pre"ioas0 cei drept0 #mpotriva riscului de a spune
prostii.
'%
4. Wurnalistul tre$uie s e3trag in*orma"iile de $az dintr8un interviu.
1ea de8a patra regul *undamental ne spune de *apt c pentru un interviu #nregistrat0
materialul $rut poate *i uneori de trei0 patru ori mai lung. Interviul este0 evident0 o posi$ilitate
de a o$"ine in*orma"ii complementare despre su$iect. 7entru c tre$uie s *ie concis0
reporterul este o$ligat s #nve"e s e3trag datele o$iective Cci*re0 *apteD din rspunsurile
intervievatului0 pentru a putea s le citeze el #nsui0 #n timp ce interlocutorul va *i lsat s8i
prezinte viziunea sa asupra lucrurilor0 prerile sale0 sentimentele sale. /ceast selec"ie i
distri$u"ie a in*orma"iei va atrage telespectatorii0 iar reporterul va evita s8i insueasc
punctul de vedere al invitatului0 pstrndu8i neutralitatea.
!e)nica aceasta de tratare a in*orma"iei este util 0 mai ales #n cazul interviului #nregistrat0
#n perioada de pregtire a reporta&ului sau a unei anc)ete0 ulterior in*orma"ia urmnd s *ie
integrat #ntr8un comentariu.
:n cazul interviului #n direct0 #n studio0 in*orma"ia de $az poate *i livrat0 $ine#n"eles0 #n
timpul prezentrii invitatuluiCcariera0 conte3tul0 etc.D0 dar i #n #ntre$rile puse acestuia.
Includerea #ntr8o #ntre$are a unei in*orma"ii capitale despre invitat poate modi*ica
dimensiunea impactului. 7u$licul a*l ast*el c interlocutorul este implicat #n a*acerea pentru
care este intervievat. Fr acest mod de a pune #ntre$area0 rspunsul va *i *oarte scurt. Spre
e3emplu0 #n cazul luptei #mpotriva corup"iei0 un ministru *ace declara"ii de sus"inere *r
limite a campaniei. 1u toate acestea0 anumite *irme sunt e3ceptate discret de la control. 5ac
#ntre$area va *i pus ast*el=@ sunte"i implicat #n administrarea mai multor *irme suspectate c
au *cut comer" #nclcnd prevederile vamale. 1um ve"i controla *irmele respective0 avnd #n
vedere c acestea nu au mai *ost veri*icate de cnd a"i *ost numit #n aceast *unc"ieQ@. .vident
c #n acest caz rspunsul va *i mult mai lung. Inevita$il0 ministrul intervievat va #ncerca s
#ndeprteze spectrul unei inter*eren"e cu a*acerea #n cauz.
5. Wurnalistul tre$uie s *ie o*ensiv i uneori c)iar impertinent. /titudinea $inevoitoare0 de
complezen"0 nu va aduce audien".
/ceast recomandare pro*esional se $azeaz pe tradi"ie pro*esional care vine din
istorie= &urnalistul revendic de secole li$ertatea de e3presie i independen"a *a" de puterea
politic i economic Csitua"ia s8a sc)im$at pro*und dup 1''00 cnd se #nregistrez o
concentrare a canalelor de comunicare prin cumprarea lor de ctre marile companii
productoare de $unuri i servicii0 tendin" du$lat de dependen"a tot mai mare a acestora de
pu$licitateD. :n particular0 #n &urnalismul audiovizual0 aceast li$ertate de e3presie i
independen" *a" de puterea politic i economic s8a tradus de8a lungul anilor printr8o
evident li$eralizare a comportamentului intervievatorului0 a reporterului0 #n raport cu
invitatul0 mai ales cnd acesta din urm este o persoan puternic0 in*luent. :n *elul acesta s8a
trecut de la interviul de valorizare a invitatului0 la interviul critic0 #n care prevaleaz interesul
pentru pu$lic.
:n interviul de valorizare0 de punere #n valoare a invitatului0 #ntre$rile sunt de
complezen"0 sunt K$inevoitoare@0 atingnd temele convenite dinainte i0uneori0 din e3ces de
zel0 c)iar #ntre$rile sunt negociate0 greeal *undamental a unui &urnalist. /cest tip de
interviu a dominat audiovizualul romnesc #n primii zece ani dup revolu"ie. 1ei care au
#ncercat s evite aceast situa"ie au *ost Florin 1linescu #n emisiunea K 1)estiunea Uilei@ i
,arius !uc0 #n emisiunea cu acelai nume. >u #ntmpltor cele dou emisiuni au avut cele
mai $une ratinguri0 #n compara"ie cu emisiunile similare care erau #n aceeai perioad la
posturile concurente. :n cele dou cazuri0avnd #n vedere atitudinea general o*ensiv a
moderatorilor0 a *ost evident di*eren"a de tratament #ntre diveri invita"i0 atunci cnd
interesele postului au impus acest lucru.
''
:n interviul de valorizare0 interlocutorul spune e3act ceea ce a decis s spun i &urnalistul
devine o unealt0 pur i simplu0 de mediatizare0 de sporire a notoriet"ii persona&ului
intervievat. /cest tip de interviu poate *i vzut *recvent #n timpul campaniilor electorale0 #n
emisiunile dedicate alegerilor. 5ar #n acest caz0 telespectatorul este prevenit= aceasta se
petrece #n a*ara emisiunilor de tiri0 a emisiunilor o$inuite ale postului de televiziune
respectiv. .misiunile dedicate campaniilor electorale au generice proprii0 care ac"ioneaz
asupra telespectatorilor similar cu genericele de pu$licitate= avertizeaz.
Interviul critic reprezint un tip de interviu mult mai atractiv pentru pu$lic. :n ;omnia0
telespectatorii doresc emisiuni #n care politicienii sunt pui #n di*icultate0 dar nu demola"i
Ca*irma"ia este sus"inut de e3perien"a de peste zece ani #n audiovizual a autorului0 #n perioada
cea mai agitat0 1''1820020 perioada de modelare a peisa&ului audiovizual postdecem$ristD.
K5emolarea@ unei persoane pu$lice #ntr8un interviu0 c)iar dac acest lucru este &usti*icat de
comportamentul persoanei respective0 strnete un ciudat sentiment de compasiune0 de
solidaritate cu cel a*lat #n di*icultate. ( e3plica"ie a acestei atitudini a #ncercat s gseasc
Berman IeEserling #n volumul ?/naliza spectral a .uropei@.
6'
IeEserling descoperea c
?omul care nu este dect onest n8are *or" de atrac"ie i de acest lucru mi8am dat seama #n
6ucureti@. IeEserling este un *ilozo* german0 nscut #n <ituania0 care a #ntreprins #n anul
1'11 o cltorie #n &urul lumii0 ocazie care i8a permis s scrie o carte despre popoarele pe care
le8a cunoscut. Uona 6alcanilor se $ucur de un capitol separat i merit citit pentru c prezint
aspecte culturale i de natur psi)ologic la nivelul popoarelor $alcanice care pot *i identi*icat
cu uurin" i astzi.
:ntr8un interviu critic0 care poate *i uneori i impertinent0 cei doi protagoniti sunt aproape
pe picior de egalitate. 1ultivarea ideii de vedet de radio sau de televiziune0 star8sEstem8ul a
creat unor realizatori o notorietate compara$il cu cea a oamenilor politici cei mai puternici.
/ceti realizatori se simt puternici0 gra"ie audien"ei pe care o au i uneori si competen"ei lor.
.i pot impune uneori cadrul0 conte3tul interviului i utilizeaz per*ect instrumentul numit
generic audiovizual. /ceti realizatori de e3cep"ie cntresc *oarte greu #n sta$ilirea regulilor
&ocului. .i nu vor prezenta niciodat0 #nainte de interviu0 *ormularea e3act a #ntre$rilor0 ci
vor conveni cu intervievatul asupra unei liste cu temele care vor *i a$ordate. :ns0 oricnd0
sunt gata s pun #ntre$ri &enante0 neateptate0 surprinztoare0 #n timpul interviului. 5ac
urmrim evolu"ia moderatorilor de la televiziunile romneti0 dup 1'%'0 vom constata c
aceti realizatori au disprut #n timp0 uor0 silen"ios0 de cele mai multe ori avansa"i #n zona
managementului0 #n zona invizi$il cine poate re*uza o avansare pro*esionalQ pentru a
eli$era locul. .vident c #n zona invizi$il nu mai pot *i lideri de opinie. 5ez$aterile privind
dosarele cola$oratorilor *ostei securit"i #ncepnd cu vara anului 2006 au mai relevat un lucru
interesant pentru cine a o$servat cu aten"ie c"i moderatori au avut acces la aceste dez$ateri=
apro3imativ % personane din tot audiovizualul romnesc.
6. Wurnalistul tre$uie s evite ca vreo #ntre$are s rmn *r rspuns.
.ste evident *aptul c0 #n anumite situa"ii0 intevievatul nu vrea sau nu poate s rspund
desc)is la o #ntre$are. /cest re*uz se poate mani*esta0 de la un rspuns care nu are nici o
legtur cu #ntre$area0 pn la un ?nu@ categoric0 trecnd prin devierea a$il ctre o alt tem.
(amenii politici sunt considera"i ?maetri@ #n aceast te)nic. >ici un &urnalist onest0 lipsit de
orice *el de o$liga"ii0 evident cu e3cep"ia acelor o$liga"ii care "in de patronat i de politica
canalului de televziune respectiv0 nu va tolera acest lucru0 care0 #n ultim instan"0 poate *i
considerat un a*ront la adresa sa i a telespectatorilor.
IeEserling Berman0 5naliza spectral a 6uropei, pag. @!, .ditura Institutul .uropean0 Iai0 1''3.
100
:n acest situa"ie0 este o$ligatoriu ca &urnalistul s puncteze re*uzul invitatului de a
rspunde. /lt*el0 telespectatorii vor rmne cu impresia complicit"ii #ntre cei doi0 invitat i
realizator. 7gu$i"i vor *i att telespectatorii0 care vor *i *rustra"i de rspunsurile la #ntre$rile
incomode0 ct i &urnalistul #n cauz i postul respectiv0 care vor pierde din credi$ilitate i
implicit din audien".
-. ,esa&ul tre$uie s *ie clar i concret
Wurnalistul este responsa$il de claritatea mesa&ului con"inut #ntr8un interviu. :n primul rnd *a"
de sineGCnu de pu"ine ori putem vedea cum &urnalistul este primul care nu #n"elege ce se
#ntmpl #n interviul respectivD. :ntre$rile con*uze sunt e3cluse0 de asemenea0 i mai alesG0
claritatea rspunsurilor intervievatului. 1ele dou elemente sunt strns legate= cu ct
#ntre$rile sunt mai mai clare i mai concrete0 cu att rspunsurile au mai multe anse de a *i
la *el. :n general0 lipsa de claritate a unui interviu rezult din urmtoarele motive= 8reporterul
cunoate *oarte pu"in domeniul0 su$iectul0
8domeniul a$ordat este mult prea specializat0 di*icil de a$ordat dintr8o perspectiv de
popularizare0 simpli*icatoare i din acest motiv voca$ularul creaz pro$leme0 8persona&ul
intervievat este un purist incorigi$il0 un re$el la *olosirea oricror e3presii
simpli*icatoare.
%. !re$uie s reui"i s8i stpni"i pe invita"i i s8i conduce"i aa cum dori"i pe cei care sunt
$uni vor$itori i s8i *ace"i s vor$easc c)iar i pe ?mu"i@.
(rice reporter #ntlnete #n cariera sa persoane care se a*l la cele dou e3treme0 montrii
sacri0 persoanele care apar des la televiziune i anonimii0 martorii unui eveniment0 neo$inui"i
s apar #n *a"a camerei de luat vederi sau s vor$easc curent #n *a"a reporto*onului. .3ist
#ns tendin"a de a aduce #n emisiune invita"i prestigioi0 valori sigure0 persoane mediatizate
care sunt o$inuite cu platoul studiolui i cu camera de luat vederi. :ntr8un studiu *cut #n
1'%- asupra emisiunii ?- sur -@0 s8a constatat urmtoarele= 50H dintre invita"i au *ost oameni
politici0 20H artiti0 10H scriitori0 mai ales cu legturi #n lumea politic i 10H ziariti.
Se pune *iresc #ntre$area0 unde sunt medicii0 pro*esorii0 savan"ii0 sindicalitii0 militarii0
pro*esorii0 elevii i studen"ii0 care s ec)ili$reze aceast asimetrieQ Situa"ia #ntlnit #n cadrul
analizei *cute asupra emisiunii ?- sur -@ este o situa"ie general0 speci*ic pentru ma&oritatea
televiziunilor europene i americane.
'. Wurnalistul tre$uie s dinamizeze interviul0 s8l ilustreze cu imagini semni*icative.
<a radio i mai ales la televiziune0 situa"ia *recvent este cea a &urnalistului *a" #n *a" cu
intervievatul. 5inamizarea interviului #n direct se poate *ace prin inser"ia de imagini *ilmate
anterior0 din zone semni*icative pentru tema interviului0 prin tele*oane #n direct0 prin declara"ii
#nregistrate care0 eventual contrazic intervievatul0 prin alternan"a tipurilor de #ntre$ri i a
temelor. 5inamizarea interviului
#nregistrat se *ace mult mai uor0 avnd #n vedere c e3ist0 de o$icei0 su*icient timp de
pregtire. Interviul poate *i ilustrat cu imagini ale interlocutorului0 *ilmat #n cadrul natural de
lucru0 acas sau #ntr8un spa"iu care8l de*inete i care &usti*ic0 prin imagini0 de ce a *ost aleas
persoana respectiv pentru a *i intervievat.
10. Peri*icarea *inal a interviului0 dup monta&
101
:n cadrul interviului #n direct0 lucrurile sunt simple. Invitatul este direct rspunztor pentru
cuvintele sale. :n cazul interviului #nregistrat Ccare0 uneori0 are #n varianta *init o durat care
poate *i de cinci8ase ori mai mic dect interviul $rutD0 tre$uie veri*icat cu mult aten"ie dac
s8a pstrat sensul e3act al mesa&ului original0 dac nu s8au de*ormat spusele interlocutorului0
prin tieturile de la monta&. :ntotdeuna e3ist riscul de a anula unele nuan"e0 atunci cnd0 din
lips de spa"iu0 monta&ul *inal este prea scurt *a" de #nregistrarea $rut. 5e aceea este $ine ca
durata #nregistrrii $rute s *ie ct mai apropiat de produsul *init. /cest risc este evident in
cazul declara"iilor la cald0 dup eveniment. :ncercnd s *ie ct mai e3plici"i0 unii politicieni
romni se lanseaz #n declara"ii lungi0 stu*oase0 din care vor rmne doar 10815 secunde #n
reporta&ele de actualit"i0 de la radio sau de la televiziune. 2lterior0 ei cer drept la replic sau
#i mani*est nemul"umirea *a" de conducerea postului0 *r s8i dea seama c ei #nii au
o*erit ocazia apari"iei unor ast*el de situa"ii.
7regtirea interviului
5e ce *acem un interviuQ /tt la radio ct i la televiziune0 interviul este cel mai
important gen &urnalistic pentru un ziarist. Interviul poate *i di*uzat intergral0 *ragmente
integrate #ntr8un reporta& sau documentar sau declara"ii cu o durat de zece pn la
cincisprezece secunde0 speci*ice tirilor din $uletinele in*ormative.
Fntre!rile
2n reporter $un #i pregtete #ntotdeauna #ntre$rile #nainte de a se prezenta #n *a"a
intrelocutorului. :ns0 acesta poate constata c #ntre #ntre$rile pregtite i realitate0 uneori
e3ist o prpastie pe care doar competen"a #l poate a&uta pe reporter s o depeasc. 7entru a
#n"elege cum tre$uie puse #ntre$rile0 vom prezenta cteve principii de $az privind punerea
#ntre$rilor.
1. Folosi"i orice $re desc)is de un rspuns0 c)iar dac v #ndeprta"i de la cursul plani*icat
al interviului.
>u de pu"ine ori0 intervieva"ii0 din cauza emo"iilor sau din alte motive0c)iar inten"ionat0 pot
Kscpa@ in*orma"ii care0 e3ploatate0 pot deveni adevrate $om$e de pres. >ici un e* nu v va
ierta dac pierde"i o asemenea ocazie0 care ar ridica audien"a postului peste cea a concuren"ei
i implicit0 ar aduce *onduri suplimentare din pu$licitate.
2. :ncerca"i s *i"i precis0 clar0 concret.
Interlocutorul are adesea tendin"a de a generaliza0 de a teoretiza0 #ndeprtndu8se de la
realitatea pe care a trit8o0 la care a *ost martor. :ntre$rile tip care ne permit s revenim la
cursul plani*icat al interviului sunt= de ceQ0 cumQ0 c"iQ de e3empluQ cum s8a petrecut acest
lucruQ ;eporterul se strduiete0 prin #ntre$rile pe care le pune0 s *or"eze interlocutorul s
dea e3emple concrete i s evite lim$a de lemn.:ntre$area tre$uie s con"in ct mai pu"ine
in*orma"ii0 pentru a o$liga interlocutorul s o*ere in*orma"iile ateptate de reporter. (
#ntre$are care con"ine prea multe in*orma"ii risc s primeasc un rspuns care con"ine e3act
in*orma"iile *urnizate de reporter i nimic #n plus.
3. >u lsa"i niciodat o #ntre$are *r rspuns.
102
Wurnalistul pierde din prestigiu i din calitatea interviului dac accept ca o #ntre$are s
rmn *r rspuns. .l este o$ligat s re*ormuleze #ntre$area0 s insiste0 pentru a o$liga
interlocutorul la o reac"ie vizi$il. 5e o$icei0 intervievatul nu rspunde la o #ntre$are atunci
cnd este incompetent0 cnd #ntre$area a *ost con*uz *ormulat sau cnd acesta este un spirit
riguros0 care se pierde #n domeniul pe care #l stpnete *oarte $ine0 *r a sesiza concret
interesul pu$licului. .vident c e3ist i situa"ii #n care intervievatul cunoate rspunsul0 dar
dezvluirea *aptelor ar pune #n pericol interse *oarte mari i re*uz s rspund.
4. ;elansarea sau reorientarea interviului.
;eporterul tre$uie s men"in interlocutorul0 mai ales #n direct0 #n limitele timpului prevzut i
#n cadrul temelor alese0 dac vrea s evite riscurile o$inuite #n aceste situa"ii= lncezeala0
durata e3cesiv a rspunsurilor sau devierea ctre o tem neprevzut.Singura solu"ie posi$il
este #ntreruperea cu delicate"e a interlocutorului cu o #ntre$are0 care readuce discu"ia la tema
prevzut i trecerea cu autoritate la o alt pro$lem. ;eorientarea interviului este mai simpl
atunci cnd avem de8a *ace cu un interviu #nregistrat.
5. /lterna"i #n interviu cele trei categorii de #ntre$ri= desc)ise0 semi#nc)ise sau desc)ise.
:ntre$area #nc)is implic trei rspunsuri= da0 nu0 nu vreau s rspund Cnu doresc s rspund0
nu pot s rspundD. S ne imaginm un e3emplu= un politician iese din cldirea guvernului0
#ntr8o perioad #n care e3ist numeroase zvonuri privind o posi$il remaniere guvernamental.
.l este #ntre$at de ziariti #n *elul urmtor= ve"i *i ministrul &usti"ieiQ /cetia pot primi unul
dintre rspunsurile urmtoare= da0 nu0 nu tiu.
:ntre$area seminc)is permite celui intervievat o alegere= ve"i *i ministrul &usti"iei sau
ministrul de interneQ ;spunsurile posi$ile la o as*el de #ntre$are pot *i ?ministrul &usti"iei@0
?ministru de interne@ sau ?nici unul0 nici altul@.
:ntre$area desc)is las posi$ilitatea oricrui rspuns= ve"i *i ministruQ. /ceast #ntre$are
#i las posi$ilitatea interlocutorului s rspund aa cum #i dorete.
:ntre$rile desc)ise sunt *oarte mult practicate #n cazul #n care reporterul dorete s o$"in
de la interlocutor anumite mesa&e #n legtur cu tema propus.
6. +ndi"i8v mereu la pu$lic.
2n interviu nu este un dialog privat0 ci are milioane de martori. :ntr8un interviu mai lung
pentru radio0 tre$uie s repetm la intervale regulate de timp numele interlocutorului0 pentru
asculttorii care desc)id aparatul #n timpul di*uzrii interviului. /celai lucru tre$uie *cut i
la televiziune0 unde aceast in*orma"ie poate *i *urnizat prin titra&0 pentru a economisi timp.
-. /legerea ung)iului de tratare a in*orma"iei.
!elespectatorul nu ateapt de la realizator0 de la reporter0 tratarea in*orma"iei #n manier
enciclopedic0 cu e3plica"ii stu*oase.!elespectatorii ateapt in*orma"ii care8l privesc0 care8l
a*ecteaz #n via"a de zi cu zi. !ransmisia direct este singura care permite di*uzarea
materialului $rut primit de la ec)ipa din teren. 7entru materialele #nregistrate0 se *ace mai #nti
selec"ia in*orma"iilor0 apoi se scrie te3tul reporta&ului sau comentariul documentarului i #n
etapa *inal se realizeaz monta&ul. .ste important deci s determinm ung)iul de tratare a
reporta&ului.
103
2ng)iul de tratare a in*orma"iei este pentru &urnalist ceea ce este $iopsia pentru $iolog sau
carota pentru geolog. Se cerceteaz o mic por"iune dintr8un "esut sau o mostr de sol i
tragem concluzii despre ansam$lu. /celai procedeu se aplic i #n &urnalism. In*orma"ia este
selec"ionat ast*el #nct s ne o*ere o idee despre ansam$lul *enomenului0 care este su$iectul
reporta&ului. 5in aceast perspectiv0 putem a*irma c &urnalistul recreaz realitatea. 5ac
comparm emisiunile de tiri de la principalele televiziuni din ;omnia0 7rima !v0 /ntena 10
7;( !P0 S;!P0 putem o$serva asemnri0 dar i deose$iri ma&ore0 din care putem desci*ra
orientarea *iecrui canal de televiziune. 2neori e3ist o asemnare pn la suprapunere ceea
ce sugereaz c e3ist o comunicare discret0 de tip capilar0 #ntre aceste televiziuni0 care
uni*ormizeaz tirile pn la o asemnare suprtoare.
2neori0 #n activitatea $uletinelor de tiri de radio i de televiziune0 ung)iul de tratare a
in*orma"iei este sta$ilit #nainte de plecarea pe teren a reporterului. /lteori0 este sarcina
reporterului s de*ineasc ung)iul de tratare a in*orma"iei0 #n *unc"ie de ceea ce se #ntmpl pe
teren. /cesta este sta$ilit #n *unc"ie de= 8actualitatea0 noutatea in*orma"iilorO 8*aptele o$servate0
de elementele #ntlnite pe terenO 8de pu$licul cruia #i este destinat reporta&ulO
:n alegerea ung)iului de tratare a in*orma"iei vor *i pre*erate acele elemente care "in de
noutate0 de dinamism0 de *aptul concret. /legerea ung)iului de tratare in*orma"iei este *unc"ie
de pu$licul "int al canalului respectiv0 de radio sau de televiziune0 care di*uzeaz reporta&ul i
de pu$licul emisiunii respective. 1analul de televiziune K/cas@ va avea anumite su$iecte in
&urnalul de tiri0 care nu se vor regsi #n &urnalul de la 7;I,/ !P0 cele dou televiziuni avnd
pu$licuri "int di*erite. 7u$licul devine i mai important #n alegerea ung)iului de tratare a
in*orma"iei atunci cnd reporterul se a*l #n strintate. 1eea ce este $anal #ntr8o "ar poate
deveni o in*orma"ie interesant pentru pu$licul de acas.
Ierar%izarea in8ormaiilor
7entru #n"elegerea in*orma"iilor di*uzate #ntr8un material audio8video0 reporterul a urmrit o
anumit logic. Ierar)izarea in*orma"iilor este complementar alegerii ung)iului de tratare a
in*orma"iei. 7rimul gest al reporterului este de a reciti tot materialul primit0 notele i
#nregistrrile. .l e3trage ceeea ce i se pare important i in*orma"iile sunt ordonate #n *unc"ie de
importan"a lor0 de noutatea lor0 ca i de legturile care e3ist #ntre acestea. ;eporta&ul este
realitatea condensat0 reporta&ul recreaz realitatea. Spre e3emplu0 o zi de dez$ateri
parlamentare poate *i rezumat la un reporta& care se di*uzeaz #ntr8un &urnal de tiri Cavnd o
durat de ma3imum dou minuteD sau poate *i rezumat #ntr8o emisiune cu o durat de
cincisprezece minute0 zilnic0 aa cum a *ost emisiunea@1ronica 7arlamentului@0 di*uzat de
Societatea ;omn de !eleviziune0 #ntre anii 1''0 i 1''2.
7entru a o$"ine coeren"a unui reporta&0 tre$uie s "inem cont de *actorul timp0 #ntruct
evenimentul are o durat #n timp mai mare dect durata reporta&ului. Foarte rare sunt ocaziile
#n care durata reporta&ului este mai mare dect durata evenimentuluiC cum ar *i *ilmarea unei
e3plozii e3perimentaleD. /ten"ia telespectatorului nu poate *i re"inut prea mult timp0 de aceea
durata unei tiri0 la radio0 nu depete treizeci de secunde0 iar un reporta& pentru radio cu
inserturi poate a&unge pn la un minut i treizeci de secunde. :n practica televiziunilor
romneti0 reporta&ul clasic de televiziune0 di*uzat #n emisiunile in*ormative0 poate depi
dou minute0 dar nu mai mult de trei minute.
104
Caracteristicile mesa#ului audiovizual
1. ,esa&ul audiovizual este un mesa& #n timp real.
7ercep"ia mesa&ului audiovizual este instantanee0 se poate *ace doar #n timpul di*uzri
acestuia. :nregistrarea audio sau video0 acas0 anuleaz aceast caracteristic0 percep"ia
instantanee din timpul di*uzrii. :ns #nregistrrile se *ac #n general #n s*era emisiunilor de
muzic i divertisment0 mult mai pu"in dependente de *actorul timp. 5espre relatrile de pres
se poate spune c reprezint prima versiune a istoriei. .misiunile de tiri sunt #nregistrate0 #n
general0 de departamentele de comunicare sau companiile care se ocup cu monitorizarea
emisiunilor in*ormative.
2. ,esa&ul audiovizual este un mesa& perceput linear.
/uditoriul sau telespectatorii iau cunotin" de evenimentele prezentate #n reporta& #n
ordinea *i3at de &urnalist. .i nu pot s asculte mai #nti te3tul i apoi s priveasc imaginile0
aa cum ar putea *ace #n cazul unui a*i sau #n czul unei pu$lica"ii.Structura reporta&ului este
impus pu$licului0 singura posi$ilitate de alegere a acestuia *iind #nc)iderea televizorului sau
comutarea pe alt canal. 1a urmare0 este important ca mesa&ul s *ie imediat #n"eles0 *iecare
sunet0 *iecare imagine s *ie lipsit de am$iguitate. ( in*orma"ie pe care asculttorul sau
telespectatorul o #n"elege greit este pierdut i nu e3ist posi$ilitatea revenirii. /ceast
o$serva"ie este *oarte util departamentelor de rela"ii pu$lice ale companiilor0 care tre$uie s
livreze audiovizualului mesa&e clare i precise0 adaptate speci*icului acestor canale de
comunicare. /ceast caracteristic se modi*ic #n cazul #n care avem produc"ii audiovizuale
di*uzate pe internet i care sunt plasate #n *iiere accesate individual.
3. ,esa&ul audiovizual este un mesa& dens i scurt.
/ten"ia pu$licului este *ragil. .ste important ca aceast aten"ie s nu *ie deturnat de la
mesa&ul esen"ial de elemente parazite0 aa cum suntzgomotele de micro*on0 apari"iile
intempestive #n cadrul camerei de luat vederi0etc. /ten"ia pu$licului poate *i re"inut pentru
pu"in timp0 iar mesa&ul e*ectiv tre$uie s *ie uor de memorat i uor de reamintit.
4. ,esa&ul audiovizual este un mesa& construit #n ec)ip.
( ec)ip care realizeaz un reporta& nu este doar o asocia"ie #ntmpltoare #ntre anumite
persoane0 ci este un grup care are ca un o$iectiv de #ndeplinit0 de cele mai multe ori *oarte
repede. Individualismul0 unul dintre miturile pro*esiei de &urnalist0 nu poate avea succes #n
audiovizual0 unde conteaz *oarte mult solidaritatea ec)ipei i complementaritatea pro*esiilor.
5e e3emplu0 un reporter care nu este spri&init de operatorul de imagine0 va avea pu"ine anse
s realizeze un $un reporta&. ;eporterul va *i spri&init de operator0 doar dac va reui s8i
creeze acestuia sentimentul c are i el o contri$u"ie real la realizarea reporta&ului respectiv.
Transmisiile n direct
.3tinderea transmsmisiilor #n direct0 datorit te)nologiei digitale0 poate *i o$servat zi de
zi #n programele de radio i televiziune. Saltul spectaculos este vizi$il #n special #n &urnalele
de televiziune. /ctivitatea tradi"ional a &urnalistului #nsemna alegerea in*orma"iilor0 trierea0
ierar)izarea acestora0 eliminarea celor nesemni*icative. :n interven"iile #n direct0 aceast
activitate se trans*orm #n comunicare i @&urnalistul devine star0 #n locul ocupat cndva de
105
in*orma"ie?.
-0
;eporta&ul #n direct creeaz iluzia c telespectatorul #nsui este martor al
evenimentelor0 iar &urnalistul0 din cauza lipsei de in*orma"ii0 este pus de multe ori #n situa"ia
de a comenta in*orma"ii par"iale0 opinii i c)iar zvonuri. 2rmrind principalele posturi de
televiziune cu acoperire na"ional0 #n perioada 2000820030 au *ost identi*icate cteva aspecte
speci*ice transmisiilor #n direct
-1
.
. 5bsena profunzimii. 2na dintre cele mai di*icile sarcini pentru reporterul a*lat #n direct
este de a analiza i de a e3plica evenimentul0 de a8l pune #n conte3t. :n consecin"0 reporta&ul
#n direct d de multe ori impresia unei improviza"ii0 prezentnd o viziune par"ial a
evenimentului. 2n e3emplu recent este reporta&ul di*uzat la ora 1'0 #n seara zilei de 2 ianuarie
2003 de postul /ntena1. ;eporterul prezenta o inunda"ie i pierderea unor vie"i omeneti care
aveau drept cauz negli&en"a autorit"ilor care nu au construit un dig de protec"ie #ntr8o zon
cunoscut a *i e3pus calamit"ilor naturale de acest gen. :ncercnd s prezinte #n acest
conte3t drama pierderii de vie"i omeneti0 reporterul #ntrea$ un supravie"uitor0 ? v ve"i mai
reveniQ?. :ntre$area i cadrul #n care a *ost *ilmat supravie"uitorul au distrus practic esen"a
relatrii0 negli&en"a autorit"ilor locale *a" de interesul cet"enilor din zon.
@. 5bsena rigorii. ;eporta&ul #n direct diminueaz rigoarea con"inutului #n munca
reporterului0 pentru c acesta rareori are posi$ilitatea s veri*ice rigoarea i precizia
in*orma"iilor. 2na dintre valorile *undamentale ale &urnalismului este onestitatea0 care impune
&urnalitilor o$liga"ia de a respecta scrupulos *aptele. 7entru a *i un &urnalist de succes0 tre$uie
s #nve"i s *ii responsa$il i s relatezi cu acurate"e evenimentele la care participi.
3. 5bsena distanrii fa de eveniment. 7entru un reporta& #nregistrat0 &urnalistul are
nevoie de timp pentru a tria in*orma"iiile0 pentru a le ierar)iza i pentru a scrie te3tul *inal ce
va *i #nregistrat. :n cazul reporta&ului #n direct0 aceast etap nu mai e3ist i interven"ia
respectiv poate *i caracterizat prin lips de structur. 5e asemenea reporterul poate *i
manipulat mult mai uor de ctre sursele sale de in*orma"ie. /st*el0 o$iectivitatea relatrii are
de su*erit iar ?rolul de mediator &ucat de &urnalist0 #ntre pu$lic i actorii evenimentelor0 este
mai di*icil ca niciodat@
-2
. Ri +er$ner consider o$iectivitatea ca *iind @t)e eMuivalent o* a
pro*essional ideologE? Cec)ivalentul ideeologiei pro*esionaleD.
-3
. 2n e3emplu din e3perien"a
departamentului de tiri al S;!P poate e3empli*ica *oarte $ine lipsa structurii unui reporta& #n
direct. In seara zilei de 22 decem$rie 20020 #n cadrul &urnalului de la !P ;omnia 10 a *ost
programat o transmisie #n direct din 7ia"a ;evolu"iei Cdup prerea noastr inutil #n
economia &urnaluluiD. :n cadrul interven"iei a *ost invitat un $r$at #n vrst0 al crui copil a
*ost ucis #n revolu"ie. 7ro$a$il c interven"ia s8a dorit una de @atmos*er?0 de recreare a
emo"iei din zilele respective. 5iscursul invitatului a *ost pu"in inteligi$il0 dar *inalul a avut un
mesa& neateptat0 1itez @dac *iul meu ar *i trit0 ar *i putut pleca i el acum #n strintate0 ca
s triasc mai $ine@. ,esa&ul acesta a *ost pur i simplu zdro$itor #n raport cu momentul de
re*erin" i evident #n total contradic"ie cu inten"ia realizatorilor0 care ar *i dorit o interven"ie
lacrimogen i doar att.
4. 7resiunea asupra reporterului. ;eporta&ul #n direct accelereaz viteza de reac"ie a
reporterului i #i creeaz acestuia sarcini suplimentare. 5e asemenea0 o$lig reporterul la o
anumit specializare0 *ar de care interven"iile vor *i marcate de un lim$a& simplist Cnu
simpluGD0 #ncrcat de a$loane ver$ale i uneori de stupidit"i. ;elatrile #n direct cu ocazia
admiterii ;omniei #n >/!( au artat *oarte clar de*icitul de persoane specializate #n
comentariul politic din audiovizualul romnesc. >u este de mirare0 #ntruct nu pu"ini teleati0
unii de&a cu statutul de vedet0 nu i8au #nc)eiat studiile.
-0
Ferari Segio0 ;amonet Ignacio0 5ez$ateri la *orumul social de la 7orto /legre0 6 *e$ruarie 2002.
-1
Stavre Ion0 /econstrucia societii rom0neti prin audiovizual0 pag.A, .ditura >emira0 6ucureti0 2004.
-2
Fis4e Wo)n0 .ntroducere Cn tiinele comunicrii, pag. 9@, .ditura 7olirom0 Iai0 2003.
-3
+er$ner0 +eorge0 K1ultural indicators= t)e case o* violence in television drama@0 /nnals o* t)e /merican
/ssociation o* 7olitical and Social Science0 nr. 33%0 pag. 6' %10 1'-0.
106
L. +oordonarea. ,unca #n &urnalismul de televiziune depete cu mult ce vd
telespectatorii. 1oordonarea #ntre mem$rii ec)ipei este esen"ial pentru succesul unei
interven"ii #n direct. 5e multe ori remarcm #ntreruperi #n relatarea reporterului0 inser"ii de
imagini #n momente nepotrivite ale transmisiei0 lipsa legturii #ntre prezentator i reporterul
din teren. !oate aceste pro$leme *ac ca interven"ia #n direct s *ie marcat de imprevizi$ilitate.
2n stil de transmisie #n direct0 promovat de 7;(!P i preluat apoi i de celelalte canale
de televiziune Cprin e*ectul de mimetism mediaticD este transmisia #n direct mult dup ce
evenimentul s8a consumat C#l vom denumi #n continuare pseudodirectD. ( ast*el de transmisie
decurge dup urmtoarea sc)em= prezentatorul din studio prezint telespectatorilor su$iectul
i pe reporterul a*lat la *a"a locului0 acesta din urm #ncepe s vor$easc apro3imativ 20830 de
secunde0 urmeaz un reporta& #nregistrat despre evenimentul respectiv0 dup care reporterul
revine #n transmisie direct cu cteva considera"ii *inale. /ceast sc)em se aplic suprator
de des mai ales #n &urnalele din zilele de sm$t i duminic. /rgumentele celor care sus"in
acest gen de transmisii #n direct pot *i grupate #n cteva categorii.
:inamica (urnalului de tiri. (rice &urnal de tiri are o anumit dinamic #n des*urarea
sa. ,anevrele regizorale pentru o ast*el de transmisie #n direct pot induce un anumit ritm0 care
s contracareze e*ectul de zapping0 de navigare #ntre di*erite &urnale. :ns acest ritm arti*icial
este insu*icient0 dac reporta&ele nu con"in in*orma"ii semni*icative pentru telespectatori i
dac te3tul este simplist0 lipsit de culoare.
&odernitatea procedeului. ,ul"i editori i redactori sus"in c acest gen de transmisie este
un procedeu modern0 o reac"ie la stilul apreciat drept conservator al televiziunii pu$lice. :n
realitate este genul de reporta& care nu comunic nimic telespectatorilor.
7articiparea emoional a telespectatorilor. Su"intorii acestui procedeu consider c
ast*el crete participarea emo"ional a telespectatorilor i con*uziile 0 impreciziile trec mai
uor neo$servate. !elespectatorii #n"eleg c emo"ia &urnalistului se datoreaz *aptului c i el
este om i nu se poate detaa total aa cum se #ntmpl #n cazul reporta&elor #nregistrate.
1oncluzii cu privire la utilzarea transmisiei #n direct=
;eporta&ul #n direct s8a e3tins #n audiovizualul romnesc datorit concuren"ei i a
dezvoltrii ec)ipamentelor digitale Cca de alt*el peste tot #n lumeD. /cest tip de reporta& nu mai
permite distan"area reporterului de eveniment i admite o rigurozitate mai sczut a in*orma"ie
di*uzate. :n plus0 un anume paralelism #ntre in*orma"iile citite de prezentator i interven"ia
reporterului Ccauzele cele mai *recvente *iind lipsa de comunicare i rivalitatea dintre
prezentator i reporterD0 #l poate #ndeprta pe telespectator care0 ner$dtor0 nu mai ateapt
*inalul i comut rapid pe alt canal.
<im$a&ul utilizat #n direct este mult mai simplu0 colocvial0 ceea ce #l apropie pe reporter de
telespectator0 dar #l poate #ndeprta #n acelai timp0 dac acesta din urm sesizeaz c lim$a&ul
simplu este doar o acoperire pentru lipsa de in*orma"ie.
;eporta&ul #n direct pune mai mult #n valoare imaginea. 1ameramanul devine oc)iul
telespectatorului i al reporterului. .rorile de *imare puteau *i intr8o oarecare msur
#ndreptate la editare0 #n cazul reporta&ului clasic.
:n cazul reporta&ului #n direct0 acest lucru nu mai este posi$il. /s*el0 coeziunea ec)ipei la
un reporta& #n direct devine mult mai important dect #n cazul reporta&ului #nregistrat.
($serva"iile *acute asupra audiovizualului romnesc #n intervalul de timp prezentat anterior
ridic0 dup prerea noastr0 dou pro$leme delicate pentru audiovizualul romnesc=
competen"a i specializarea personalului redac"ional.
10-
Te%nici de redactare a teItelor pentru televiziune
:n peisa&ul mass8media #ntlnim mai multe tipuri de canale de comunicare0 *iecare cu
speci*icul su. 7rincipalele canale de comunicare sunt urmtoarele=
aD agen"iile de pres. /cestea au o re"ea mare de reporteri la nivel national si alimenteaz cu
tiri ma&oritatea pu$lica"iilor. :n provincie0 de *oarte multe ori un reporter lucreaz la mai
multe pu$lica"ii0 care nu sunt concurente sau care *ac parte din acelai trust de pres. 5e
e3emplu0 un anga&at al canalului de televiziune !P >eptun din 1onstan"a poate lucra i la
coditianul care *ace parte din acelai trust de pres. 1ele mai multe canale de radio i de
televizine sunt a$onate la *lu3urile de tiri ale agen"iilor de pres. :n ;omnia anului 2006
sunt dou mari agen"ii de pres0 ;ompres i ,edia*a3. ;ompres este o agen"ie pu$lic0 care a
rezultat din trans*ormarea *ostei agen"ii de stat /gerpres. ,edia*a3 este o agen"ie nou0 care
*ace parte din trustul ,edia7ro. !endin"a general de concentrare a mass8media implic
apari"ia #n *iecare trust de pres a unei agen"ii care *urnizeaz in*orma"ii tutror pu$lica"iilor
trustului. /st*el0 trustul care de"ine canalul de tiri ;ealitatea !P a decis recent Cvara anului
2006D #n*iin"area agen"iei de pres >e9sInn.
$D cotidiane0 centrale i locale. :n cazul #n care dori"i s ti"i care este tira&ul real al unui
cotidian0 consulta"i 6;/! C6iroul ;omn de /udit al !ira&elorD. 1erti*icarea 6;/! se *ace la
cererea conducerii cotidianului respectiv. /cest certi*icare este util #n special agen"iilor de
pu$licitate care pot s aprecieze #ntr8un mod ct mai aproape de realitate valoarea pu$licit"ii
pentru cotidianul care a cerut certi*icarea 6;/!.
cD periodice Csptmnale0 lunareD. 1erti*icarea 6;/! se poate *ace i pentru aceste pu$lica"ii.
cD radiouri private i radioul pu$lic C;adiodi*uziunea ;omnD.
dD televiziuni private i televiziunea pu$lic CSocietatea ;omn de !eleviziuneD. 1erti*icarea
cotelor de audien" se *ace de ctre /+6 5/!/ ;esearc)0 o companie specializat0 agreat de
televiziuni0 de agen"iile de pu$licitate i 1>/ C1onsiliul >a"ional al /udiovizualuluiD.
7rincipalele canale private de televiziune cu acoperire na"ional sunt= /ntena 10 7ro!P0 7rima
!P0 ;ealitatea !v0 >a"ional !v. 7eisa&ul mediatic romnesc a #nregistrat i dispari"ii
spectaculoase0 cum este cazul canalului de televiziune !ele - a$c. K7roiectan"ii@ acestei
televiziuni comerciale au uitat s le spun anga&a"ilor c aceasta a *ost #n*iin"at doar ca vector
de comunicare pentru alegerile din anul 1''6. Fiecare trust mare de pres a urmrit tendin"a
mondial #n acest domeniu0 *ragmentarea audien"ei. /st*el0 #n trustul ,edia7ro au aprut
1inema7ro0 /cas0 *iecare canal tv avnd un pu$lic $ine de*init. /ntena 1 a urmrit aceeai
tendin"0 ceva mai trziu #ns0 #n acest trust aprnd /ntena 30 /ntena 2. !eleviziunea pu$lic
s8a adaptat tendin"ei de *ragmentare a audien"ei prin patru o*erte= !P; 10 canal generalist0
!P; 20 canal orientat ctre pu$licul activ0 !P; Interna"ional0 orientat ctre romnii din a*ara
grani"elor i !P; 1ultural. 7e lng aceste televiziuni cu acoperire na"ional0 mai e3ist i
*oarte multe televiziuni locale0 care nu vor rezista economic rmnnd independente . Por
avea de ales0 #ntre a disprea sau a deveni sta"ii locale ale televiziunilor mari.
7entru a$solven"ii unei *acult"i de comunicare care vor lucra #ntr8un departament de
comunicare al unei companii sau al unei institu"ii pu$lice este important s tie care sunt
sursele de in*orma"ii ale unui ziarist0 indi*erent de pu$lica"ia la care lucreaz. /cestea pot *i=
1D o persoan0 o*icial sau nu.
2D $irourile de pres ale institu"iilor pu$lice i ale companiilor.
10%
3D ziaristul poate *i propria sa surs0 #n cazul #n care realizeaz o anc)et din care rezult
in*orma"ii deose$ite #n urma intervievrii unui numr mare de persoane i a analizrii unor
documente. :n acest caz este *oarte important s8i asume concluziile rezultate ca urmare a
analizei unor date0 a unor statistici0 a unor $ilan"uri0 etc.
4D agen"iile de pres.
5D in*orma"ii *urnizate de alte organiza"ii media0 cotidiane0 radiouri0 televiziuni. 7entru a *i la
curent cu ceea ce di*uzeaz concuren"a0 #n mass8media K*iecare monitorizeaz pe *iecare@.
Jtirile de televiziune
1aracteristica esen"ial a unei tiri0 #n general i implicit a unei tiri de televiziune este
impar"ialitatea0 att #n con"inut ct i #n modul de ierar)izare a in*orma"iilor. 2neori sunt
omise in*orma"ii c)eie0 alte ori sunt igorate elemente care pot o*eri un alt ung)i de vedere
asupra realit"ii. 5in pcate0 de cele mai multe ori0 #n modul de a *ace televiziune dup 1''50
acest recomandare a rmas doar #n paginile manualelor de &urnalism. Impar"ialitatea se poate
asigura prin mai multe metode. :n general #mpar"ialitatea se poate o$"ine prin re*lectarea
tuturor aspectelor pro$lemei relatate. 2n e3emplu de realizare a impar"ialit"ii poate *i
urmtoarea relatare= 3000 de mani*estan"i potrivit poli"iei0 10.000 de participan"i potrivit
organizatorilor.
( tire tre$uie sa *ie di*uzat rapid. 5in acest punct de vedere tre$uie sa "ine"i cont c
e3ist o adevrat concuren" #ntre ziariti i orice #ntrziere v poate pune #n in*erioritate sau
poate *i punctul de plecare al unei situa"ii de criz. 5i*uzarea rapid a unei in*orma"ii nu
presupune din partea &urnalitilor ra$at de la acurate"e i de la veri*icarea riguroas a
in*orma"iilor respective. 5irectorul departamentului de comunicare de la o institu"ie pu$lic
sau privat nu poate utiliza un regim pre*eren"ial prea accentuat pentru anumite canale de
comunicare0 pentru anumi &urnaliti0 pentru c poate duce la ostilizarea celorlal"i.
( in*orma"ie are un e*ect cu att mai mare cu ct prezint un interes pentru om0 care8i
permite acestuia s se plaseze #n postura de martor sau de participant la evenimente. 5e
e3emplu0 e3ist o mare deose$ire #ntre cele dou a*irma"ii= ?un om de 40 de ani i8a omort
*amilia@ i ?un somer de 40 de ani i8a omort *amilia@. Uiaristul a descoperit c asasinul era
omer0 ceea ce introduce o not emo"ional suplimentar. /ceast in*orma"ie poate avea o
in*luen" deose$it #n modul de percepere a tirii de ctre telespectatori.
Situa"ia de con*lict i insolitul se regsesc #n no"iunea interesului uman. !ot ceea ce evoc
lupta sau competi"ia i tot ceea ce iese din cadrul normal este0 de o$icei0 de interes general. 2n
practicant al rela"iilor pu$lice tre$uie sa cunoasc cum scrie un &urnalist0 pentru c un
comunicat $ine scris are ansa sa *ie preluat integral. Rtirea de pres nu se con*und cu
evenimentul #n sine. 5ac vom compara dou tiri despre acelai eveniment0 vom constata att
deose$iri ct i asemnri. !otui0 regula unanim acceptat privind stilistica tirii de pres este
aceea c aceasta tre$uie s rspund la urmtoarele #ntre$ri=
1D Cine este implicatQ
2D Ande s8a produs evenimentulQ
3D Cum s8a produsQ
4D Cnd s8a produsQ
5D 6e ce s8a produsQ
6D Ce s8a #ntamplatQ
P veti #ntre$a care este ordinea la care tre$uie s se rspund la aceste #ntre$ri. /ici
intervine pro*esionalismul0 arta &urnalistului de a scrie o tire atrgatoare. S lum un
10'
e3emplu= accidentul ,I+8ului 230 din anul 1'''. Pom #ncerca s rspundem la *iecare
#ntre$are=
1D Ce s8a #ntmplat= un pilot i8a pierdut via"a #n urma pr$uirii unui avion militar ,I+823.
2D Ande s8a #ntamplat= aeronava s8a zdro$it de un deal #n apropiere de +iarmata0 lng
!imioara.
3D Cnd s8a #ntmplat= stenii din zon au auzit o $u$uitur puternic la prnz. .i au crezut
c rz$oiul din Tugoslavia s8a mutat lng casele lor Ccoloratura pentru radioD.
4D Cum s8a #ntmplat= avionul a pierdut $rusc din vitez i pilotul
5D Cine este implicat= nu l8a mai putut redresa.
6D 6e ce s8a produs accidentul= autorit"ile nu cunosc #nc cauzele accidentului.
;emarca"i c tirea redactat pentru presa scris are structura unei piramide rsturnate. :n
ast*el de situa"ii $iroul de rela"ii pu$lice al ,ap> d un comunicat #n care se a*irm dou
lucruri=
L a *ost un z$or de rutin sau de antrenament
L a *ost numit o comisie de o*i"eri care s investig)eze cazul. 1omentnd situa"ii
similare din avia"ia militar american i practica de rela"ii pu$lice similar a 7entagonului0
<arrE Iing o$serv= K/m$ele a*irma"ii sunt plauzi$ile0 i0 *cndu8le pu$lice att de repede0
*or"ele aeriene dau dovad de )otrre i responsa$ilitate *a" de dreptul pu$licului de a *i
in*ormat asupra accidentului. :n acelai timp0 cele dou a*irma"ii0 alung orice suspiciune i
o*er *or"elor aeriene un timp pre"ios0 #n decursul cruia se des*oar investiga"iile@.
-4
7iramida este inversat #n sensul c cele mai importante in*orma"ii sunt prezentate la #nceput
i importan"a lor pentru #n"elegerea de ctre cititori a ceea ce s8a #ntmplat descrete ctre
*inalul tirii. Structura acestei piramide este urmtoarea=
introducere CleadD. :n introducere sunt prezentate cele mai importante in*orma"ii0 pentru
c este momentul #n care cititorul va continua s citeasc articolul sau va trece la altul
dac acesta i se va prea neinteresant 5e o$icei #n introducere se rspunde la cea mai
important #ntre$are. 7entru c via"a umas este suprema valoare0 prima #n*orma"ie se
re*er la pierderea unei vie"i omeneti.
Iing <arrE0 Secretele comunicrii, , .ditura /maltea0 6ucureti0 1'''0 p.144
110
L cuprinsul tirii= #n cuprinsul tirii se va rspunde la celelalte #ntre$ri0 #n ordinea
importan"ei0 a relevan"ei pentru cititori. :n e3emplul dat0 s8a rspuns apoi la #ntre$area
unde) <a momentul respectiv locul era deose$it de important pentru c era #n
des*urare rz$oiul din Iosovo i putea aprea con*uzia c avionul a *ost do$ort din
greeal sau inten"ionat de pe teritoriul *ostei Tugoslavii.
L #nc)eierea poate *i un *inal desc)is #n acest caz pentru a permite relatrile i a doua zi0
#n orice direc"ie0 #n *unc"ie de concluziile comisiei de anc)et.
5e ce s8a adoptat aceasta stuctur pentru tiriQ 5ou rspunsuri sunt pentru aceast #ntre$are=
1D 5e o$icei0 editorii parcurg primele paragra*e ale unei tiri pentru a decide dac #i
intereseaz sau nu.
2D 5e multe ori editorii sunt o$liga"i s scurteze tirile din cauza spa"iului tipogra*ic limitat.
7entru a nu a*ecta #n"elegerea de ctre cititori a ansam$lului tirii0 reducerea articolului se *ace
de la s*rit0 unde sunt plasate in*orma"iile complementare.
5ac te3tele pentru pres sunt scrise *olosind te)nica piramidei inversate0 te3tele pentru
radioteleviziune *olosesc alte te)nici0 adaptate modului de recep"ionare a in*orma"iilor de
ctre telespectatori.
:n manualul de stilistic pentru radioteleviziune0 editat de 27I C2nited 7ress
InternationalD
-5
se spune c #n ceea ce privete stilistica0 presa are cinci #ntre$ri de $az Ccine0
ce0 unde0 cnd0 de ceD iar scrisul pentru televiziune are patru e3igen"e= Corectitudine0
Claritate0 Concizie0 Culoare Ccei patru 1D.
:n ceea ce privete structura te3telor0 materialele redactate pentru radio i televiziune sunt
scrise #n te)nica unit"ii dramatice. Fiecare reporta& este o unitate dramatic din care nu se mai
poate tia0 *r a a*ecta #n"elegerea acestuia de ctre telespectatori. Structura unit"ii dramatice
este alctuit din trei pr"i= punctul culminant0 cauza i e*ectul.
7unctul culminant #i o*er telespectatorului esen"a #ntmplrii0 apro3imativ #n acelai *el #n
care o *ace introducerea la o tire pentru presa scris0 #i e3plic condensat telespectatorului ce
s8a #ntmplat.
1auza este partea care e3plic de ce s8a #ntmplat0 #mpre&urrile #n care a avut loc
evenimentul.
.*ectul este acea parte a reporta&ului care prezint telespectatorului conte3tul i #i mai
poate o*eri in*orma"ii privind consecin"ele pentru viitor a evenimentului respectiv.
7entru a #n"elege mai $ine stilistica scrisului pentru radio i televiziune0 prezentm
urmtorul e3emplu=
7unctul culminant
1et"enii ;omniei vor plti din luna septem$rie 15H mai mult pentru un metru cu$ de gaz.
+auza
:n aceast dup amiaz guvernul a *ost in*ormat care este situa"ia privind acestei scumpiri de
principalele companii care *urnizeaz gaz metan pe pia"a romneasc.
6fectul
Se estimea c aceast msur va a*ecta su$stan"ial nivelul de trai al popula"iei a*lat la
nivelul salariului mediu pe economie.
Structura unui material de televiziune care respect te)nica unit"ii dramatice are o structur
circular0 din care nu se poate tia *r s *ie a*ectat capacitatea de #n"elegere a
telespectatorului. Rtirile de radio i televiziune tre$uie s atrag aten"ia pu$licului de la
LLL &anual pentru ziaritii din 6uropa +entral i de 6st, .ditura ,etropol0 6ucureti0 1''20 p.141
111
primele cuvinte. 1aptarea aten"iei asculttorilor este de multe ori mai important dect
reporta&ul propriu8zis. 5ac nu i8a *ost captat aten"ia0 telespectatorul are la #ndemn
telecomanda i poate comuta pe alt canal. ( introducere $un respect cteva reguli= 8nu
depete 20 de secundeO 8lmurete concentrat ct mai multe aspecte.
:n cazul tirii de televiziune0 introducerea nu este citit de reporter0 ci de crainic. 7entru
sporirea dramatismului se poate introduce o propozitie oc. .3emplu= sicriele z$urtoare
continu s *ac victime. 2n pilot militar i8a pierdut via"a #n urma pr$uirii unui ,I+823.
/vionul s8a in*ipt #ntr8un deal #n apropiere de +iarmata0 lng !imioara. 5ac persoana
implicat nu este cunoscut0 nu este nevoie s i se dea numele #n introducere. :n tirea de radio
se citeaz persoanele o*iciale care *ac declara"ii. :n tirea de televiziune persoanele o*iciale
implicate apar #n secven"e video care nu dureaz mai mult de 15820 de secunde. /tunci cnd
se introduce o persoan cu o *unc"ie pu$lic sau de alt natur0 #nti se precizeaz *unc"ia i
apoi numele persoanei. <a tirea pentru televiziune0 sunetul precede imaginea. .ste o regul
de ra*inament #n monta& care are o e3plica"ie *iziologic0 se $azeaz pe *aptul c viteza cu care
creierul decodi*ic sunetul este mai mare dect viteza de cu care decodi*ic imaginile de
televiziune. :n cuprinsul tirii nu vor *i repetate in*orma"iile din introducere. Se recomand
*olosirea ver$elor la timpul prezent. ;eporterul nu tre$uie s se implice emo"ional #n
redactarea tirii.
Fnc%eierea
2ltima parte a tirii cuprinde detalii mai putin importante. 1a a$solven"i ai unei *acult"i de
comunicare0 ve"i *i nevoi"i s ela$ora"i de multe ori comunicate. 1omunicatul de pres se
redacteaz dup te)nica piramidei rsturnate. :n plus0 #n comunicat mai tre$uie s apar=
Ldata i locul di*uzrii0
Linstitu"ia de la care provine0
Lpersoana de contact0
Ltampila institu"iei.
Ideal este s nu se depi"i o pagin.
Tipuri de reporta#e Bclasi8icare n 8uncie de timpul realizrii i timpul di8uzriiC
1D ;eporta&ul #n direct. .venimentul este accesi$il pu$licului #n timp ce se produce.
1olectarea0 tratarea i di*uzarea in*orma"iei sunt simultane. .sen"ialul muncii s8a des*urat
#nainte de a pleca pe teren sau #nainte de a intra #n emisie.
2D ;eporta& de tiri. .venimentul tre$uie s *ie adus la cunotin"a pu$licului. 1olectarea i
tratarea datelor este aproape simultanO cteva zeci de minute0 ore c)iar. .sen"ialul muncii are
loc #n timp ce reporterul se a*l pe teren0 #n a*ara redac"iei.
3D ,agazin0 emisiune magazin. .venimentul care este comunicat pu$licului este un *apt
#mplinit. 1olectarea0 tratarea i di*uzarea in*orma"iei sunt distincte. 1oeren"a reporta&ului este
cea pe care o d reporterul0 #naintea celei a evenimentului.
Forma aleas pentru reporta& dup des*urarea evenimentului este la *el de important ca
prepararea i #nregistrarea.
112
Armrirea 8eed-!ac+-ului
2n reporta& se consider reuit dac rspunde la trei e3igen"e=
Lin*ormeaz pu$licul0
Ldezvluie0 cat mai pu"in posi$il0 sursele0
Lcomunic0 creeaz un dialog0 implicare a pu$licului.
.ste di*icil de apreciat dac pu$licul a *ost in*ormat0 dac primul o$iectiv a *ost atins.
7unctul de vedere al auditoriului nu se poate msura prin sonda&e0 de aceea vom *i aten"i la
tele*oane0 scrisori0 care reprezint elemente de evaluare calitativ a programului de tiri. :n
cazuri deose$ite se poate comanda c)iar un studiu calitativ0 care #n general costisitor. /ceste
recomandri care apar"in pro*esiei de &urnalist tre$uie s *ie $ine cunoscute i cei care
lucreaz #n domeniul comunicrii0 pentru ca ei tre$uie s vin #n #ntmpinarea necesit"ilor
&urnalitilor. 5ac lucra"i la o agen"ie de $ro4era&0 de e3emplu0 pute"i o*eri sptmnal
&urnalitilor de specialitate analize ale evolu"iei pie"ei de capital. :n acest *el ve"i putea
dezvolta un parteneriat cu ziaritii0 care v va a&uta sa atingeti o$iectivele de comunicare ale
companiei la care lucra"i.
<iteratura de specialitate a consacrat o serie de studii privitoare la tipologiile mediatice ale
evenimentului0 pornind de la criterii precum relevan"a editorial0 ?consisten"a@ evenimentului0
gradul de inten"ionalitate0 accesul la media sau modelul discursiv adoptat. :n continuare
prezentm cteva criterii de clasi*icare a evenimentelor=
/. 6up relevana editorial C Freund0 /ndreas D
-6
1.6venimente ma(ore8se re*er la *apte de o importan" indiscuta$il0 de prim ordin0 #n
legtur cu care relatarea este0 #n principiu0 o$ligatorie. 5e o$icei0 acestea provoac edi"ii
speciale0i c)iar o #ntrerupere modi*icri importante #n structura programelor de televiziune.
2.6venimente demne de interes8se di*eren"iaz prin aceea c nu prezint relevan" dect pentru
un anumit segment al pu$licului receptor sau0 prin lipsa pro3imit"ii temporale0 nu au nici o
consecin" previzi$il important.
3.6venimente de importan medie-evenimente care *ormeaz grosul in*orma"iei cotidiene0
*iind cuprinse #ntre ma&ore i negli&a$ile.
6. ?1onsisten"a@ evenimentului impune=evenimente reale0 cu o materializare
recent0 i ?proiectate@0cu materializare #n planul viitorului apropiat.
1. /celai criteriu0 impus de W. 7almer
--
propune urmtoarea ta3onomie=
1. evenimente hard8considerate att interesante0 ct i importante0 necesitnd acoperirea
complet i aten"ia *ocalizat a mass8mediaO
2. evenimente soft8sunt interesante *r a *i importante Cmai ales evenimente din s*era
cultural i tiin"i*ic DO
3. evenimente spot8rezult ca urmare a rela"iilor dintre institu"iile statului i mass8mediaO
4. evenimente breaking8incomplete0 di*icil de relatat #n manier categoric0 dar se anun" a *i
importante0 a*late #n plin des*urare.
5. ,olotc)0 B.0 <ester0,.
-%
propun o tipologie *unc"ie de gradul de intenionalitate"
1. 6venimente de rutin-*apte o$inuite care se #mplinesc #n mod deli$erat0 iar cei
-%
,olotc)0BarveE J <ester0,arilEn0 ?In*ormer8une conduite dVli$VrVe.5e l_usage strategiMue des VvVnements@0
care le ini"iaz sunt #n acelai timp i promotorii lor la rangul de evenimenteO
113
-6 --
Freund0/ndreas0 <ournalisme et mesinformation, pag. @@0 .ditions la pensVe Sauvages0 7aris0 1''10
7almer0 Wo)n.0 ?!)e media /n introduction@0 1''%0 3--
,olotc)0BarveE J <e #n ;Vseau30 no.-501''6
2. 5ccidentele-*aptul nu este inten"ionat0 iar cei care #l promoveaz ca eveniment
pu$lic nu sunt actorii *aptuluiO
3. Scandalurile-evenimente ce implic trans*ormarea unor ocuren"e #n *apte
mediatice prin ac"iunea inten"ionat0 deli$erat a unui actor sau individO
4. Nnt0mplrile fericite-*apte neinten"ionate0 promovate ce evenimente de actorii care
le8au produs.
5. Func"ie de accesul la media"
1.6venimente cu acces obinuit8*aptele actorilor coincid de o manier rutinier cu
activitatea &urnalitilor
2.6venimente cu acces perturbator8*apte ale cror promotori *ac e*orul de a pertur$a
accesul rutinier al altor actori la media #n scopul promovrii propriilor evenimente
3.6venimente cu acces direct8creatorii[actorii i promotorii lor sunt &urnalitii
( alt tipologie recunoscut este propus de ctre 1)arandeau
-'
i apeleaz la criteriul
modelului discursiv=
1.6venimentul raportat8cuprinde *apte i opinii0 *aptele relevnd o parte a
comportamentului indivizilor0 iar opiniile0 dependen"a ocuren"elor din spa"iul pu$lic
de o serie de declara"iiO
2.6venimentul comentat-propune o viziune de ordin e3plicativ0 urmrind punerea #n
lumin a laten"elor ce constituie ?motorul@ evenimen"ialit"iiO
3.6venimentul provocat de media8contri$uie #ntr8o manier activ la stimularea
dez$aterii sociale
( alt clasi*icare ordoneaz evenimentele #n *unc"ie de accesul la media0 ast*el=
1. 6venimente cu acces obinuit-caz #n care actorul dispune de un asemenea statut0
#nct actele sale coincid rutinier cu activitatea &urnalitilor. 1el mai elocvent
e3emplu este cel al autorit"ilor statale ale cror acte de comunicare sunt
considerate #ntotdeauna importante.
2. 6venimente cu acces perturbator-pertur$ accesul rutinier0 a*irmndu8se ele #nsele
ca *iind importante. .ste cazul evenimentelor create sau a protestelor sociale
3. 6venimente cu acces direct-ziaritii sunt cei care promoveaz0 creatorii i actorii
acestora. Se #ntmpl adesea ca un eveniment s parvin ca urmare a unui demers
&urnalistic.
5in perspectiva actualizrii0 1.F. 7opescu
%0
distinge evenimente reale, materializate
prin *apte din trecutul apropiat i evenimente proiectate0 apar"innd planului declarativ0
inten"ional i urmnd s se materializeze #ntr8un viitor apropiat.
Scrisul pentru televiziune
;ecunoaterea puterii imaginilor de televiziune ar putea duce uor la su$evaluarea importan"ei
cuvintelor. >ecesitatea scrisului $un pentru televiziune este mai mare ca niciodat #nainte.
/udien"a are nevoie sa #nteleag pro$lemele politice0 sociale0 economice i de mediu care le
a*ecteaz via"a.
7streaz stilul simplu
:n ciuda dezvoltrii $inevenite a programelor de in*orma"ii cu su$iecte specializate0 cele mai
multe programe de &urnalism de televiziune se adreseaz unei audien"e generale. Spre
deose$ire de ziare0 capa$ile s se adreseze unei audien"e mai restrnse0 uneori mai
-'
1)arandeau0 7atric40@ <es 1onditions dhun tEpologie des genres televisuales dhin*ormation@0 #n ;Vseau30 no.
%101''-0 pp. -'8100
%0
7opescu0 1ristian F.0 7ractica (urnalismului de informare, .d. 2niversit"ii ?<ucian 6laga@0 Si$iu0 1''%0 p. 4'
114
specializate0 televiziunile tre$uie #n"elese de to"i0 deci nu tre$uie s *ie prea intelectuale0 *r
#ns a insulta inteligen"a. 1a recomandare general0 scrieti8v scenariile #ntr8un lim$a&
caracterizat de=
Lacurate"e0
Lclaritate0
Lsimplitate0
Lstil direct0
Lneutralitate.
Scriei aa cum vor!ii
1eva straniu se #ntampl cu mul"i &urnaliti $uni care #ncep s scrie pentru televiziune.
+ndurile clare devin #nvalmaite i con*uze0 propozi"ii simple sunt contorsionate #n
^*ormulare^ i K*ormulri@. <im$a&ul direct se trans*orm #n lim$a& ?o*icial@. ;egula
*undamental #n scrisul pentru televiziune este urmtoarea= gndete #nainte de a scrie. Sau
mai $ine= gndete cu voce &oas #nainte de a scrie. 1u ct sun mai pu"in natural0 cu att mai
mult e3ist posi$ilitatea s *ie greit. !e3tul pentru televiziune se scrie dup ce a"i vizionat
imaginile.
(ii logici
f cnd este posi$il0 povesti"i su$iectul #n mod cronologic Crecomandare vala$il pentru
reporta&e tv0 documentare0 etc.0 #ns nu pentru operele de *ic"iuneD
Lca o regul general0 #ncerca"i sa e3prima"i *iecare idee #ntr8o propozi"ie scurt0
L#ntelege"i mai inti dumneavoastr ce a"i scrisO dac nu #ntelege"i dumneavoastr0 nimeni nu
va #n"elege0
Lnu cde"i #n capcana lim$a&ului utilizat #n documentele o*iciale. 2neori cei care le redacteaz
urmresc s creeze con*uzie0 dar cel mai adesea cel care le8a redactat nu are sim"ul cuvintelor0
Lintre$a"i8v #ntotdeauna= 1e doresc s spunQ i apoi spune"i.
(erii-v de stupiditi
+reelile sunt *cute de reporterii care sunt or$i la conte3tul #n care #i scriu te3tul. 1uvinte cu
du$lu sens utilizate involuntar0 super*icialitatea sau lipsa de sensi$ilitate rz$at de multe ori
din materialele di*uzate.
Kim!a#ul adecvat pentru televiziune
;ecomandarea *acut reporterilor s *oloseasc stilul direct0 conversa"ional0 nu #nseamn c
stilul negli&ent devine accepta$il. 1eea ce se urmrete este utilizarea celor mai potrivite
cuvinte. 5in pcate0 oricine se aventureaz s o*ere s*aturi altora cum s *oloseasc lim$a&ul
#n televiziune se va a*la #n #ncurctur. 5ar merit s riti0 pentru a puncta ceea ce nu tre$uie
s *ac &urnalistul0 pentru a8i improspta memoria din cnd #n cnd.
>rgou
<imita de demarca"ie #ntre lim$a&ul colocvial i argou este una *oarte su$"ire0 uor de depit.
5elimitarea devine i mai di*icil pentru c e3presii sau cuvinte respinse ieri sunt utilizate #n
mod normal astzi0 iar mine se trans*orm #n cuvinte gsite doar #n dic"ionar. S*atul nostru
este sa *i"i precau"iO lsa"i8i #n pace pe le3icogra*i.
115
0ponime
1e ne8am *ace *r Cal patrulea conte deD Sand9ic)0 C/ndersD 1elsiusQ /lt*el spus0 cum
tre$uie sa utilizm numele proprii care s8au trans*ormat #n su$stantive comuneQ /cestea vor *i
utilizate *olosind pronun"ia #ncet"enit #n audiovizual. :n general0 regula nescris0 respectat
#n audiovizualul romnesc este aceea de a utiliza pronun"ia original a numelor proprii0 *r
adaptare la lim$a romn0 ceea ce nu se #ntmpl de o$icei #n lim$a *rancez i #n lim$a
englez.
Cliee
Wurnalitii au #ntotdeauna o lista lung cu *raze pstrate #n $irouri0 #ns nu este necesar s le
*oloseasc. .i *ac de multe ori glume pe seama lor #nii0 avnd ca su$iect povestiri compuse
#n #ntregime din aceste cliee. P recomandm s gsi"i alternative elegante la aceste cliee.
>cronime
/cestea constituie o *orm de &argon. 2nele acronime au trecut #n lim$a&ul o$inuit ca entit"i
de dic"ionar. .3emplele clasice sunt >/!( i 2.. 5ar acestea tre$uie in"elese de cel care
scrie. :n lim$a&ul militar0 acronimul S/,0 de e3emplu0 este o prescurtare pentru ?rac)eta sol8
aer@. / descrie o ast*el de rac)et ca ?rac)eta S/,@ #nseamn s spui ?rac)eta rac)eta sol8
aer@. :n concluzie0 evita"i acronimele care nu sunt in"elese de pu$lic i construc"iile
gramaticale du$ioase care se o$"in *olosind acronime.
0vitarea o8enselor inutile
SeIism
1uvintele prin care #ncerca"i sa impune"i recunoaterea locului *emeilor #n societate sunt de
o$icei o*ensive. <im$a&ul ?se3ist@ este adesea inadecvat. S8au *acut progrese pentru
eliminarea acestuia0 #n special #n S2/ i #n .uropa occidental0 #ns este un drum lung pan la
eliminarea de*initiv a acestui lim$a&. 1a reporter0 ar *i $ine sa lua"i decizia de a *olosi cuvinte
care se re*er la ?gen@ #n deplin cunotin" de cauz0 *r a merge prea departe0 ast*el risca"i
s #ndeprta"i restul audien"ei.
2asism
:n democra"iile multiculturale dup 1''00 negli&en"a #n a *olosi un lim$a& rasist este de
neacceptat. >u este uzual s te re*eri la culoarea0 religia sau originea rasial a unei persoane.
5e asemenea0 este uimitor ct sunt de ignoran"i unii &urnaliti #n privin"a cuvintelor care se
re*er la credin"ele religioase Cinclusiv a lor0 dac au vreunaD. .rorile clasice includ re*eriri la
$isericile evreiesti0 la sr$atorile cretine0 la su$estimarea importan"ei islamului i a
$udismului i con*uzia #n legtur cu titulatura liderilor religioi. ,ul"i dintre acetia au
e3per"i #n rela"ii pu$lice care v pot a&uta #n a realiza acurate"ea materialului.
$!sesia vrstei
($sesia unor ziariti de a nota mereu vrsta celor despre care scriu nu este rspandit #n
&urnalismul audio8vizual. Prsta se men"ioneaz #n reporta& dac prin acesta audien"a va
#n"elege mai $ine povestea.
0tic%ete politice
.tic)etele pot *i e3trem de *olositoare. ?5reapta@ i ?stnga@ spre e3emplu pot *i indica"ii
scurte re*eritoare la personalit"ile politice i este o tentativ de a le aeza in conte3t. >u
#ntotdeauna este de a&utor s *olosim ast*el de etic)ete0 pentru c acestea nu re*lect pozi"ia
116
real pe eic)ierul politic a persoanei respective. 1ineva ar putea *i descris ca apar"innd
?aripii stngi@ a 7artidului >a"ional <i$eral. :n aceast situa"ie tre$uie s re"inem *aptul c
pozi"ionarea este doar #n compara"ie cu colegii de partid care au adoptat pozi"ii ?mai de
dreapta@. 5eci0 *i"i precau"i #nainte de a utiliza o etic)et politic0 aceasta putnd s provoace
un litigiu. Sau utiliza"i cteva cuvinte #n plus0 pentru a reda sensul corect al conte3tului.
>tracia pentru inteligen1 capacitate de nelegere
Studiile sociologice au aratat ca nivelul audien"ei care urmrete tirile la televiziune este
sczut. ,ul"i telespectatori au di*icult"i #n a povesti con"inutul programelor pe care le8au
urmrit0 con*und personalit"ile pe care le8au vzut &urnalele de tiri. 5in acest motiv
in*orma"ia tre$uie s *ie clar0 lipsit de am$iguitate.
2eguli de aur n scrisul pentru televiziune
L/lege"i imaginile i sunetul ct mai apropiate de povestea pe care ave"i de gnd s o scrie"i.
Fi"i aten"i la orice detaliu care ar putea s *ie util nara"iunii. >u *i"i tenta"i s accepta"i
includerea unor cadre sau a unor secven"e care sunt amuzante0 dar care nu contri$uie la *ondul
povestirii. 5ac povestea dumneavoastr are alocat o anumit durat de timp0 ocupa"i tot
timpul acordat0 alt*el ve"i putea *i o$ligat s reedita"i materialul.
L<sa"i editorul de imagine s8i *ac datoria.
L:ntocmi"i o list cu cadre pentru versiunea *inal. /ceasta este ca importan" a doua lege
dup prima0 care se re*er la vizionarea materialului $rut i ascultarea sunetelor. <ista cu
imagini este o msur de a asigura acurate"ea coresponden"ei #ntre imagini i te3t. 7rocedura
const #n consemnarea detaliilor legate de lungimea cadrelor0 a con"inutului imaginilor i de
natura te3tului. :n con*ormitate cu principiul ?imagini #naintea cuvintelor@0 lista cu descrierea
imaginilor ar putea prea demodat0 dar *i"i siguri c v va garanta o produc"ie mai $un.
LScrie"i te3tul cu lista de imagini #n *a"a dumneavoastr.
L:nregistra"i comentariul. 5ac este timp0 reasculta"i cuvintele #nregistrate. 5ac este nevoie
de vreo a&ustare0 este mult mai uor s modi*ici te3tul dect imaginile.
Atilizarea listei cu cadre
:ncepe"i s scrie"i imediat ce ave"i lista complet0 #nainte ca imaginea mental a reporta&ului s
dispar. /eza"i cte trei cuvinte pe *iecare rnd0 #n dreapta *oii. .ste surprinzator ct de uor
v ve"i lansa dup ce a"i scris te3tul pentru 30 sau 40 de secunde. >u pierde"i timpul cu
?lustruirea@ prozei scrise pe masur ce #nainta"i. 1ompleta"i te3tul ct de repede pute"i.
7rimele e3primri care v vin #n minte sunt0 de regul0 i cele mai $une. >u este #ntotdeauna
necesar s #ncepe"i comentariul cu primele imagini ale evenimentului0 mai ales daca sunte"i
o$liga"i s scrie"i ?pe genunc)i@. Selecta"i scena cea mai important i #ncepe"i s scrie"i #n
&urul ei. (dat ce a"i depit primele cuvinte0 restul te3tului va veni de la sine.
Atilizarea listei cu cadre
L7rima greeal este aceea de a #nregistra mai multe cuvinte dect durata imaginilor montate.
;ecomandarea este #n acest caz= ?lsa"i imaginile s respire@. 1el mai $un te3t este adesea cel
care utilizeaz cele mai pu"ine cuvinte.
L/ doua greeal este s scrie"i *r sa "ine"i cont de propriile noti"e0 de con"inutul imaginilor.
:n acesta situa"ie0 enervarea privitorului este garantat0 pentru ca telespectatorul se ateapt s
vad ceea ce este descris #n vor$e. /ceeai o$serva"ie este vala$il i #n cazul sunetului. 5ac
este necesar s v re*eri"i la ?ceva@ pentru care nu ave"i imagini0 *ace"i acest lucru indirect0
*r s atrage"i aten"ia c nu ave"i imagini adecvate. ( alt rezolvare editorial a lipsei de
imagini pentru o situa"ie dat este apari"ia reporterului #n ?stand up@ Capari"ia video a
acestuiaD.
11-
L/ treia greeal este aceea de a a&unge la o suit de e3plica"ii pentru ceea ce se vede pe
ecran. /cest lucru nu este necesar #ntrucat audien"a este capa$il singur s vad ceea ce se
#ntmpl #n imagini. 5ac ve"i #ncerca s ?e3plica"i@ imaginile0 ve"i o$"ine *raze lungi0
plicticoase.
L/ patra greeal const #n lipsa de gri& pentru precizie0 corectitudine. .3emplu= dac scrie"i
despre numrul automo$ilelor pe sosea0 imaginile tre$uie s arate automo$ile i nu s
predomine camioanele sau auto$uzele. 5ac nu sunte"i siguri0 *olosi"i termeni generali. :n
acest caz0 ?tra*ic@ ar putea acoperi tot ce circul pe sosea0 de la $iciclete la $olizi ai oselelor.
>naliza audienei i mar+etingul de televiziune
1ercetarea audien"ei *ace posi$il managementul #n televiziune0 prin asigurarea *eed8$ac48
ului. 1ercetarea audien"ei are dou componente ma&ore= cercetarea cantitativ i cercetarea
calitativ. 1eea ce se realizeaz zilnic0 aa cum vom prezenta #n continuare0 este cercetarea
cantitativ la nivel na"ional0 care ne spune ce audien" au avut programele tuturor
televiziunilor0 ce pu$lic a urmrit programele respective0 care este structura de vrs0 se30
studii a pu$licului respectiv. :ns analiza cantitativ nu ne spune i de ce au avut succes
anumite programe0 iar altele nu. <a #ntre$area de ceQ rspund studiile calitative0 care sunt mult
mai costisitoare i se *ac punctual pentru *iecare program #n parte. .3trapolrile sunt *oarte
riscante #n cazul studiilor calitative asupra programelor de televiziune. /naliza permanent i
detaliat a audientei este cerut de c1ien"ii de pu$licitate pentru msurarea impactului
mesa&ului comercial pe care #l produc0 precum i de societatile de televiziune pentru
msurarea popularit"ii programelor. 1analele de televiziune di*uzeaz reclame care
stimuleaz vnzarea produselor0 iar productorii0 prin intermediul agen"iilor de pu$licitate0
*inan"eaz producerea programelor sau ac)izi"ionarea lor. .vident0 cu ct programul are o
audien" mai ridicat 0 cu att rec1ama #ncorporat #n program este mai e*icient0 iar pre"ul
pltit de agen"ia de pu$licitate sau clientul direct pentru di*uzarea rec1amei este mai ridicat.
Succesul de audien" este urmat neaprat i de un suces comercial sau cum a*irma Poltaire
#ntr8unul dintre panseurile sale Kun succes care nu are urmri nu #nseamn nimic@. 5e aici
rezult necesitatea msurrii audien"ei. ,surarea audien"ei este stimulativ i pentru vedete.
1u ct programul prezentat de o vedet are audien" mai mare0 cu att sunt mai convingtoare
argumentele pentru negocierea salariului. ,surarea cotelor de audien" este *oarte important
i pentru managerii din audiovizual0 #n negocierile cu vedetele. >egocierile #ntre !eo
!randa*ir i patronul de la 7;(!P sunt cel mai recent e3emplu. ;ela"ia dintre managerii #n
audiovizual i vedete poate *i comparat cu rela"ia #ntre I.<. 1aragiale i *iul su natural0
,ateiu 1aragiale0 autorul romanului 1raii de curte vec)e. ,ateiu 1aragiale era cunoscut
pentru grandomania sa0 pentru redactarea unui ar$ore genealogic *antezist0 cu #naintai din
spi" no$iliar. 7entru a8l aduce cu picioarele pe pmnt0 $trnul 1aragiale #i spunea uneori=
vezi *iule c *runtea este #nc teit de tvile cu plcint crate de $unicii ti0 aluzie la
ocupa"ia de plcintar a $unicului lui ,ateiu 1aragiale.
5ac televiziunile comerciale triesc su$ Kteroarea audimatului@0 aa cum remarca *oarte
plastic 7ierre 6ourdieu0 televiziunea pu$lic are o alt misiune0 iar programele acesteia
tre$uie s rspund celor trei misiuni *undamentale= in*ormare0 educa"ie i divertisment.
Scurt istoric
7rimele #ncercri de msurare a audien"ei s8au *cut pentru emisiunile de radio0 #n
prea&ma anului 1'200 cnd pu$licitatea a #nceput s se dezvolte #n S2/. :n anul 1'30 s8au
*cut primele sonda&e tele*onice care au *ost prima #ncercare de msurare a audien"ei radio. :n
cadrul acestor sonda&e0 asculttorii erau ruga"i s reproduc ceea ce au auzit #n orele
11%
precedente la radio. :n anul 1'35 asculttorii de radio erau ruga"i s reproduc ceea ce auzeau
#n acel moment i nu ceea ce au ascultat cu ore #n urm.
:n anul 1'500 compania >ielsen din S2/ a #nceput s introduc #n televizoare un
mecanism de #nregistrare0 desc)iznd calea msurrii electronice a audien"ei Uece ani mai
trziu0 6iroul /merican de 1ercetare a introdus sistemul /r$itron care *olosea un dispozitiv
electronic instalat #ntr8un numr de case8eantion. In*orma"iile culese erau transmise #ntr8un
computer central o dat la '0 de secunde. .volu"ia msurrii audien"ei #n decursul timpului a
urmrit doua o$iective=
1. 1reterea acurate"ei in*orma"iilor i im$unatatirea te)nologiei de colectare a acestoraO
2. 1reterea vitezei de colectare a in*orma"iilor. 5ac la #nceput erau necesare dou
sptamni pentru colectarea i prelucrarea in*orma"iilor din &urnalele scrise0 acum aceleai
in*orma"ii sau c)iar mai multe sunt disponi$ile peste noapte datorit sistemelor electronice
de msurare i calcul.
:n ;omnia0 msurarea audien"ei a *ost realizat pn #n 200- de compania /+6 5ata
;eseac)0 iar #n prezent este realizat de compania +FI.
>naliza audienei T@ aC
Indicatori de audien
.3ist mai mul"i indicatori de audien" care e3prim sintetic aprecierea telespectatorilor *a"
de programele de televiziune0 gradul de percep"ie a reclamelor di*uzate0 rela"ia dintre costul
reclamelor i e*ectul lor asupra poten"ialilor cumprtori ai produselor la care se *ace reclam0
precum i alte aspecte care prezint interes *ie pentru agen"iile de pu$licitate0 *ie pentru
di*uzorii de pu$licitate. :n lipsa unor termeni romneti care s e3prime aceste *enomene0
indicatorii de audien" au *ost prelua"i direct din lim$a englez0 ei *iind de&a *olosi"i ca atare
de specialitii #n domeniu. :n ;omnia0 msurarea audien"ei se *ace pe doua paliere= total i
ur$an0 din cauza *aptului c singura televiziune care are acoperire na"ional CtotalD este
televiziunea pu$lic. 1elelate televiziuni mari0 7ro!v i /ntena 10 ca i celelalte televizini0
depind de aria de rspndire a *urnizorilor de ca$lu. 7u$licul total este estimat la 1% milioane
de persoane0 iar pu$licul ur$an este estimat la 12 milioane. 1ei mai importan"i indicatori de
audien" sunt mentionati #n cele ce urmeaz=
. /ating-ul e=prim gradul de popularitate al postului sau al emisiunii. /ating-ul
total
!
JgeneralK este raportul dintre numrul telespectatorilor care privesc la televizor la un
moment dat i numrul telespectatorilor poteniali care au acces la un televizor.
>umrul telespectatorilor poten"iali este considerat *i3 #n momentul msurrii audien"ei i
este denumit adesea univers. 5ac0 spre e3emplu0 numrul telespectatorilor poten"iali din
;omnia este de 1% milioane0 iar numrul telespectatorilor care privesc la televizor0 la un
moment dat0 este de 4 milioane0 rezult c ratingul total este de 4.000.000[1%.000.000i00220
adic de 22H.
;ating8ul unui anumit post de televiziune este raportul dintre numrul telespectatorilor la
un moment dat i numrul telespectatorilor poten"iali care au acces la un televizor. 5ac0 spre
e3emplu0 postul este privit de 1 milion de telespectatori dintr8un univers de 1% milioane0
rezult ca rating8ul postului este de 1 3 1000000[1% 31000000i00050 adic de 5H. /cesta este
un rating $un. .vident0 rating8ul poate *i calculat pentru anumite perioade de timp0 pentru
>icolae Stanciu0 7etre Parlan0 &anagementul televiziunii0 .ditura <i$ra Po30 6ucuresti0 20010 p. %2
11'
anumite categorii de telespectatori i pentru anumite programe0 inclusiv pentru programe de
pu$licitate.
7entru o mai $un #n"elegere a acestui paramentru de audien"0 vom analiza un e3emplu
*oarte simplu de campanie de pu$licitate la televiziune. 7resupunem c avem de8a *ace cu o
campanie *ormata din 4 spoturi C1D0 C2D0 C3D i C4D. /dmitem ca popula"ia este *ormata din 5
indivizi0 C/D0 C6D0 C1D0 C5D i C.D care au reuit s vad cele 4 spoturi ast*el=
1ampania C/D C6D C1D C5D C.D_
S7(! C1D / vzut >u a vzut / vzut >u a vzut >u a vzut
S7(! C2D >u a vzut >u a vzut >u a vzut / vzut >u a vzut
S7(! C3D >u a vzut >u a vzut >u a vzut >u a vzut / vzut
S7(! C4D / vzut >u a vzut / vzut >u a vzut / vzut
Ta!elul 4) 5eterminarea numrului de spoturi vizionate de popula"ie
;ating8ul *iecrui spot este urmtorul=
;ating C1D i 2 indivizi0 adic 40H din popula"ie ;ating C2D i 1 individ0 adic 20H din
popula"ie ;ating C3D i l individ0 adic 20H din popula"ie ;ating C4D i 3 indivizi0 adic 60H
din popula"ie.
@. +ota de pia
!@
JS#/Kreprezint o Cmprire sau o distribuie a audienei Cntre mai
multe canale de televiziune i se e=prim prin raportul Cntre numrul de telespectatori care se
uit la un anumit canal de televiziune i numrul total de telespectatori care privesc la
televizor Cn acel moment. +u alte cuvinte OshareO e=prim cota din totalul privitorilor care se
uit Cn acel moment la un anumit program sau la un anumit canal de televiziune.
5in acest motiv0 #n locul no"iunii ^s)are^ se *olosete uneori e3presia ^cota de audien" ^.
5ac dintre cei 4 milioane de privitori men"iona"i mai sus0 1 milion se uit la un anumit canal
de televiziune0 rezult pentru canalul tv respectiv o cot de audien" egal cu
.EEE.EEE".EEE.EEEPE,@L, adic 25H. /ceasta #nseamn ca un s*ert din totalul privitorilor
de televizor urmresc programul unei singure televiziuni. /ceasta este o cota de audien"
*oarte $un.
?.Target-ul J/+#K este un indicator care pune Cn eviden puterea de penetrare a
postului de televiziune. 6l se e=prim prin numrul persoanelor care fac parte din audiena
unui canal de televiziune.
:n "ar noastr0 puterea de penetrare cea mai mare0 la nivelul #ntregii "ri0 o are canalul
pu$lic !P; 10 care0 prin transmisia semnalului prin re"eaua de relee terestre ale regiei de
telecomunica"ii0 poate acoperi tot teritoriul ;omniei. .ste singura televiziune0 pn acum0
care o*er condi"ii de recep"ie *acile #n mediul rural. 1elelalte televiziuni0 c)iar dac transmit
programele prin satelit0 nu au o putere de penetrare mare #n mediul rural din cauza numrului
redus de antene individuale para$olice0 costisitoare i greu de instalat i a posi$ilit"ilor
*inanciare limitate ale societ"ilor de ca$lu #n zonele rurale. !otui0 te)nologia digital o*er
acum variante individuale de recep"ie a semnalului de televiziune de o calitate remarca$il0
depind uneori calitatea o*erit de *urnizorii prin ca$lu. .ste vor$a de solu"iile o*erite de
120
companiile 5igi!P i FocusSat. 5ezavanta&ul acestor solu"ii const #n *aptul c o anten
corespunde unui singur post de recep"ie. 5ac dori"i mai multe televizoare #n cas0 este nevoie
s cumpra"i mai multe antene i mai multe decodoare. Industria )otelier pre*er solu"ia
o*erit de *urnizorii prin ca$lu0 pentru c o anten poate deservi simultan mai multe
televizoare.
/ceste limitri nu a*ecteaz prea mult veniturile principalelor televiziuni comerciale
C7ro !P i /ntena 1D0 deoarece pu$licitatea se adreseaz #n special mediului ur$an0 unde
indicatorul ^target^ nu di*er considera$il pentru televiziunea cu acoperire na"ional. 7u$licul
ur$an este Kvnat@ de companiile de pu$licitate pentru c este un pu$lic cu posi$ilit"i
*inanciare mai mari0 cu poten"ial de cumprare mai mare. :n oraele cu peste 200.000 de
locuitori0 #n care audien"a este cercetat cu prioritate0 acest indicator poate *i c)iar mai $un
pentru 7ro !P i /ntena 1 dect pentru !P; 1.
7entru mai $un #n"elegere a acestui indicator0 s revenim la e3emplul campaniei
pu$licitare men"ionate anterior. ;1B se poate ca1cula0 #n acest caz0 *cnd suma indivizilor
di*eri"i care au vzut cel pu"in un spot din campanie0 deci care *ac parte din audien"a postului
respectiv=
;1B i C/D`C1D`C5D`C.D i 4 indivizi0 deci %0H din popula"ie. Individul C6D este e3clus
deoarece0 nevznd nici un spot nu *ace parte din audien".
". 5deziunea este un indicator care e=prim , procentual, preferinele telespectatorilor
pentru un anumit canal de televiziune, pe grupe de v0rst, se= sau dup alte criterii care
prezint interes pentru ageniile de publicitate sau pentru difuzorii de publicitate.
Indicatorul este important pentru c pu$licitatea anumitor produse care vizeaz0 spre
e3emplu0 *emeile sau anumite categorii de vrst0 tre$uie di*uzat #n emisiunile care au
audien" ridicat pentru aceste categorii de telespectatori.
L.+ostul la mie J +7&K este un indicator folosit pentru msurarea eficienei financiare
a publicitii i se e=prim prin costul OatingeriiO a EEE de subieci ai audienei. 5e
e3emplu0 daca un clip pu$licitar de 30 de secunde0 transmis intr8o emisiune de tiri0 cost 500
dolari0 iar programul respectiv are o audien" de 100.000 de telespectatori0 rezult costul la
mia de telespectatori 17,iC50011 00.000D3 1.000i5 dolari. .misiunile cele mai populare
atrag o audien" mare i au un 17, redus. :n cazul emisiunilor cu rating mic tre$uie redus
pre"ul pu$licit"ii pentru a o$"ine totui un venit.
A.7unctele de /ating J1/7K msoar impactul unei campanii publicitare. 1ei mai mul"i
di*uzori nu ac)izitioneaz spoturi individuale0 ci pac)ete de clipuri cu care se realizeaz
campanii pu$licitare. +;7 e3prim e*ectul campaniei pu$licitare i se ca1culeaz prin
#nsumarea rating8urilor *iecrui program di*uzat.
5aca relum e3emplul anterior privind campania pu$licitar0 +;; se poate ca1cula ca suma
rating8urilor *iecrui spot0 adic=
+7; i ;ating C1D`;ating C2D`;ating C3D`;ating C4D i 2`1`1`3 i - indivizi.
.3primat #n procente0 #n raport cu #ntreaga popula"ie0 avem= +;7 i -3 1 00[5 i 140H
Timpul mediu de vizionare J5TDK este un alt indicator folosit destul de frecvent i
reprezint numrul mediu de minute vizionate Cntr-un anumit interval de timp.
/atingul mediu pe minut J5&/K reprezint media numrului de telespectatori per
minut.
7e lng indicatorii men"iona"i se pot de*ini o serie de indicatori *inanciari0 care sunt
importan"i pentru aprecierea e*icien"ei economice a campaniei pu$licitare. S presupunem c
121
cele 4 spoturi din e3emplul *olosit anterior s8au caracterizat prin urmtoarele date=
1ampania 1ost CdolariD 5urata Csec.D ;ating CHD
S7(! C1D 1000 30 40
S7(! C2D 500 30 20
S7(! C3D 500 30 20
S7(! C4D 1000 30 60
Ta!elul 2) 1osturile de di*uzare ale spoturilor
1u datele de pn acum0 se pot de*ini urmtorii indicatori *inanciari ai unei campanii
de pu$licitate=
LInvesti"ia sau costul total al campaniei=
Investi"ia i 1ost C1D`1ost C2D`1ost C3D`1ost C4D i 3500 dolari
L 5urata campaniei sau durata total a tuturor spoturilor din campanie
5urata i 4330 i 120 secunde
L 1ostul realizrii unui punct de rating C1ost per ;ating 7ointD
1ost [ +;7 i lnvesti"ie [ +;7 i 3500[140 i 25 dolari
1ostul pe persoan contactat este costul necesar pentru ca cel pu"in un spot s a&ung la
cel pu"in o persoan= 1ost[7ersoanai Investitie[;1Bi3 500[4i%-5 dolari.
Indicatorii de audien" rating i s)are sunt calcula"i de ctre institutele de specialitate i
trimise a doua zi tuturor televiziunilor i agen"iilor de pu$licitate precum i altor a$ona"i
interesa"i. 7e $aza datelor primite acestea #i orienteaz activitatea viitoare i #i corecteaz
$ugetele alocate di*eritelor emisiuni i activit"i.
!C *etode de cercetare a audienei
.3ist dou tipuri principale de cercetare a audien"ei= cercetarea demogra*ic i cercetarea
psi)ogra*ic.
+ercetarea demografic #mparte audien"a #n *unc"ie de anumite caracteristici cum sunt=
vrsta0 se3ul0 venitul0 educa"ia0 starea civil etc.
1ele mai utilizate caracteristici sunt vrsta0 i se3ul. 1ategoriile de vrst *recvent *olosite
sunt= 6814 ani0 15824 ani0 25834 ani0 35844 ani0 45854 ani0 55864 ani i peste 65 ani. 5in punct
de vedere al se3ului0 categoriile se noteaz cu 6 C$ar$atiD i F C*emeiD. 2n manager de tiri #i
poate propune0 spre e3emplu0 s mreasc audien"a #n zona 6 358540 #n timp ce un manager al
unui canal de muzic #i poate orienta "inta emisiunilor ctre zona 6 15834 sau spre o zon
mai larg 68F 25854. /lte categorii demogra*ice sunt di*eritele etnii care0 evident0 urmresc
cu prioritate emisiunile speciale care le sunt adresate.>ivelul de educa"ie i statutul socio8
economic al telespectatorilor di*eren"iaz0 de asemenea0 audien"a. .misiunile de oper0 $alet i
teatru #i gsesc telespectatorii0 #n primul rnd0 printre oamenii cu studii superioare. .duca"ia
este strns legat de venit i de aceea reclamele la o$iectele scumpe0 cum sunt mainile de lu30
produsele pentru distrac"ie0 computerele0 tre$uie plasate #n programe care atrag o audien" mai
educat. :n general0 in*orma"iile demogra*ice o*er indicii legate de mrimea i compozi"ia
audientei. /ceste date reprezint pentru televiziune ec)ivalentul tira&elor pentru presa scris.
Factorii demogra*ici nu pot #ns e3plica de ce oamenii pre*er un canal tv sau un program #n
de*avoarea altora.
+ercetarea psihografic JcalitativK urmrete *urnizarea unor in*orma"ii calitative despre
audien". .a #ncearc s identi*ice i s descrie audien"a din punct de vedere psi)ologic0 pe
$aza unor *actori cum sunt= stilul de via"0 )o$$E8uri0 pasiuni0 opinii0 nevoi0 trsturi de
122
personalitate etc. 1ercetarea psi)ogra*ic este *olosit i pentru studierea pozi"iei pe pia" a
unui canal tv #n raport cu concuren"a. Studiile de imagine sunt destinate analizei percep"iei
pu$licului asupra canalului de televiziune respectiv. :n *elul acesta intrm #n s*era studiilor
calitative.
Imaginea postului reprezint adesea di*eren"a dintre succesul *inanciar i dezastru. 2n
canal de televiziune poate c)eltui milioane de dolari pe ec)ipamente per*ormante i personal
cali*icat0 dar dac nu este perceput ca un post serios0 cu tiri de ultima or i ec)ili$rate0 aceti
$ani s8ar putea s *ie *olosi"i cu totul ine*icient. .misiunile de tiri reprezint unul dintre cei
mai importan"i Kstlpi@ ai grilei de programe a unei televiziuni CPezi >a"ional !PD.( alta
e3plica"ie a cercetrii psi)ogra*ice privete studiile segmentate. /cestea identi*ic audien"a
di*eritelor su$grupuri speci*ice prin prisma stilului de via". Identi*icarea unor ast*el de
grupuri *aciliteaz dezvoltarea i testarea programelor i a pu$licit"ii. 2n ast*el de studiu ar
putea #mpar"i audien"a0 spre e3emplu0 #n 4 segmente distincte= segmentul 10 alctuit din
telespectatorii cu venituri mari0 cu studii superioare0 interesati de *ilme clasice i strine. /cest
grup poate *i "inta unei campanii pu$licitare care promoveaz produse de lu3.
Segmentul 20 alctuit din telespectatori de s*rit de sptamn. /cetia se regsesc #n
clasa de mi&loc0 au venituri medii0 sunt interesa"i de sport0 grdinrit0 divertisment. .i pot *i
"inta unei campanii pu$licitare pentru ec)ipamente i articole sportive0 gospodreti0 produse
medicale. Segmentele 3 i 4 pot *i alctuite din telespectatori inactivi din punct de vedere
social0 cum sunt persoanele casnice i din necstori"i. Fiecare dintre aceste segmente are alte
pre*erin"e de vizionare a programelor de televiziune i ca atare necesit aplicarea altor planuri
de mar4eting.
( alta aplica"ie a cercetrii calitative este programul8test Cemisiunea pilotD care servete
pentru msurarea reac"iei audien"ei #nainte de c)eltuirea unui $uget important. Se *olosete #n
special pentru testarea #n *aza de produc"ie a unor programe scumpe0 cum sunt0 spre e3emplu0
programele de divertisment. :n lipsa programului *init0 productorii se *olosesc de *otogra*ii0
cadre numerotate0 scene din timpul *ilmrilor0 des*urtor de emisiuni0 pentru a anticipa
reac"ia telespectatorilor.
cC Colectarea in8ormaiilor
,rimea audien"ei nu este msurat prin contorizarea numrului real al telespectatorilor
care urmresc programele de televiziune
%3
. ( ast*el de solu"ie ar *i *oarte scump i greu de
aplicat.
!oate institu"iile de msurare a audien"ei *olosesc un numr relativ mic de locuin"e pe care
le aleg #n con*ormitate cu te)nicile cercetrii statistice. /ceste locuin"e reprezint eantionul
CpanelulD reprezentativ al unei audien"e mult mai mari. 1teva sute de locuin"e reprezint o
popula"ie de cteva milioane pentru rating8urile locale0 iar cteva mii reprezint zeci de
milioane de locuin"e pentru rating8urile na"ionale.
7rima *orm de msurare a audien"ei a *ost &urnalul de $ord0 #n care *iecare mem$ru al
*amiliei scria datele cerute de cei care msurau audien"a. .3perien"a institu"iilor americane de
cercetare a audien"ei a artat #ns ca numai 2[3 din mem$rii locuin"elor contactate sunt de
acord s scrie cu regularitate datele necesare pentru prelucrarea in*orma"iilor= pornirea i
oprirea televizorului0 comutarea canalului0 precizarea persoanei care privete etc. 5e
asemenea0 se tie ca doar &umtate din numrul mem$rilor locuin"ei alese *ac acest lucru
corect0 c)iar dac pentru aceast munc sunt recompensa"i. 1omoditatea dizolv orice
rigurozitate.
;ezultatele prelucrrii in*orma"iilor culese sunt prezentate agen"ilor de pu$licitate0
>icolescu (vidiu0 Strategii manageriale de firm, pag 9!, .ditura .conomic0 6ucureti0 1''6.
123
canalelor de televiziune cumprtorilor de media0 productorilor i altor interesa"i0 su$ *orma
de rapoarte0 #n sc)im$ul unei ta3e sau al unui a$onament.
;apoartele pe $aza msurtorilor de audien" se pu$lic trimestrial0 sptmnal sau c)iar
mai *recvent. .le con"in date privind procenta&ul celor care au posi$ilitatea s vad diversele
programe0 cota audien"ei totale0 *olosirea televizoarelor #n locuin"e0 procenta&ul locuitorilor
care se uit la di*erite intervale de timp Cde e3emplu0 din &umtate #n &umtate de orD0 durata
urmririi programelor i alte in*orma"ii care prezint interes.
:n ultimii doi ani0 locul &urnalelor scrise a *ost luat de sistemele electronice de msurare a
audien"ei care *urnizeaz in*orma"ii mai e3acte i #ntr8un timp *oarte scurt. /paratul *olosit #n
acest scop se numete ^peoplemeter^. 1utiu"a care reprezint peoplemeter8ul este amplasat
pe televizorul #n *a"a cruia se a*l telespectatorul. /cesta are o$liga"ia0 con*orm intelegerii cu
compania de msurare0 s ac"ioneze0 la #nceputul i la s*arsitul vizionarii programului0
tastatura unei telecomenzi special pus la dispozi"ie de *irm. Fiecare tast corespunde unui
mem$ru al *amiliei0 ale crui caracteristici demogra*ice sunt #nregistrate #n calculatorul
central. :n momentul #n care se vizioneaz oricare dintre programele supuse msurrii0
in*orma"iile privind #nceputul i s*ritul vizionrii sunt transmise prin intermediul unui
circuit tele*onic0 la calculatorul central al *irmei. So*tul sesizeaz dac persoana respectiv a
urmrit cel pu"in un minut programul respectiv. /ceste in*orma"ii sunt comparate cu datele
rezultate din monitorizarea programelor0 care a&ung la acelai calculator central.
:n acest *el0 se poate ti ce program a *ost vizionat0 ct timp i de ctre cine. In*orma"iile
o$"inute se transmit c1ientului a doua zi0 Cteleviziune0 agen"ie etcD0 care le #nmagazineaz #n
propriul calculator0 de unde le poate e3trage la momentul dorit.
5e o$icei0 in*orma"iile culese #n timpul zilei sunt #nmagazinate #ntr8o memorie i
transmise pe circuitul tele*onic #n timpul nop"ii0 ast*el #nct #n *iecare diminea" ele a&ung pe
masa c1ientului.
/+6 este singura companie din lume care se ocup e3clusiv de audien"a !P. / *cut
progrese semni*icative #n ultimii ani0 *apt demonstrat i de recenta ctigare a licita"iei de
operare #n /nglia0 patria companiei !aElor8>elson Sotres. #n prezent opereaz #n 16 "ri0
printre care Italia0 +recia0 /ustralia0 ,e3ic0 7ortugalia0 !urcia0 2ngaria0 7olonia i ;omnia.
In*orma"iile despre audien" la nivel interna"ional pot *i o$"inute de la Institutul *rancez
^,ediatmetrie^ care de"ine date din di*erite "ri. :n mai multe "ri0 mai ales europene0 s8au
#n*iintat organiza"ii care cuprind delega"i din .partea posturilor de televiziune0 a agen"iilor de
pu$licitate i a productorilor. :n ma&oritatea pie"elor de pu$licitate a*late #n dezvoltare se
alege un singur organism de cercetare care garanteaz validitatea rezultatelor i nein*luen"area
lor de ctre *actori e3terni. <a aceast solu"ie s8a a&uns dup ce #n unele "ri au aprut litigii
care au con*irmat denaturarea rezultatelor. ;ezultatele mai pot *i denaturate i prin modul de
alegere a eantionului0 de aceea se recomand reevaluarea periodic a eantionului.
dC Kimite n msurarea audienei
(rice test0 inclusiv cel al audien"ei0 tre$uie s ai$ dou caracteristici= s *ie valid0 adic s
oglindeasc realitatea0 s *ie sigur0 adic s dea acelai rezultat0 ori de cte ori este aplicat #n
condi"ii nesc)im$ate. ;ealitatea este ca nici o metod nu este per*ect. !oate introduc erori
cauzate *ie de personalul care prelucreaz datele0 *ie de te)nica *olosit. ( alt limitare #n
msurarea audien"ei este costul. 7e pie"ele mari0 costul unor rapoarte individuale de cercetare
a audien"ei poate a&unge pn la 100.000 2S5. Serviciile de cercetare suplimentare0 cum sunt0
de e3emplu0 programele8test se pltesc separat0 deci mresc costurile. ,anagerii tre$uie s nu
scape din vedere c aceste cercetri nu sunt un su$stitut al ini"iativei i e3pertizei manageriale.
( anumit distorsionare a rezultatului cercetrilor este produs i de tendin"a de #ncura&are
peste msur a *olosirii &urnalelor scrise i a aparatelor ^peoplemeter^ de ctre persoanele care
124
*ac parte din panel. S8a o$servat c aceast #ncura&are se trans*orm #ntr8un *el de concurs care
#i determin pe oameni s se uite la televizor mai mult dect ar *ace8o dac nu ar *i angrena"i
#n aceast activitate. 2n ast*el de comportament duce la denaturarea rezultatelor.
2nii consider ca #nsui *aptul de a cere oamenilor s rspund unui set de #ntre$ri pentru
a primi un premiu0 nu este etic. Indivizii implica"i #n cercetarea audien"ei sunt li$eri s nu mai
participe cnd nu mai vor. 2neori0 oamenii se uit la televizor pentru a nu *i singuri0 pentru a
se deconecta sau pentru a evita orice alte contacte. /ceste dorin"e intime ale individului
tre$uie respectate c)iar daca a*ecteaz procesul de cercetare a audien"ei.
eC *arimea i structura panelului de 7eople *eter n 2omnia
/+6 5ata ;esearc) opereaz un panel de msurare electronica a audientei !P Cmetod
7eople ,eterD ce acoper toate localitatile cu o popula"ie de peste 200 mii locuitori din
;omnia. /cest panel con"ine 350 de gospodarii C81000 persoaneD i asigura msurarea
audientei !P0 minut cu minut a unei popula"ii de 4'00205 persoane Cpeste 6 ani0 din
gospodarii cu televizorD. 5in 200-0 masurtorile sunt *cute de compania +FI.
In8ormaii generale
7anelul de 7, al /+6 5;0 *iind un panel de gospodarii0 este structurat CeantionatD pe
$aza principiilor varia$ile ce pot in*luenta audien"a !P0 numite i variabile de eantionare.
/cestea sunt=
L 5imensiunea gospodriei 8 varia$il cu trei nivele C1820 384 i 5` mem$riD0
considerat esen"ial pentru comportamentul de vizionare al indivizilor din *iecare gospodrie
#n parte.
L +radul de ca$lare a gospodriilor 8 varia$il cu doua niveluri C1a$lat[>eca$latD
determinant0 #n condi"iile speci*ice ;omniei0 pentru gradul de recep"ie te)nic a
canalelor !P.
L Su$8aria geogra*ic 8 e3ist 1- su$8arii de dimensiuni relativ egale= 11 orae i 6
sectoare ale 6ucurestiului 8 asigur o $un dispersie a panelului #n plan geogra*ic i0
prin aceasta0 o reprezentare corect a valorilor0 posi$il di*erite0 pe care celelalte dou
varia$ile de eantionare le pot #nregistra #n di*erite zone ale "rii.
7ractic0 #n eantionare se *olosesc distri$u"iile primelor doua varia$ile de eantionare
dup su$8aria geogra*ic.
:n a*ara acestor varia$ile0 structura panelului este controlat periodic i #n ceea ce privete
distri$u"ia urmtoarelor variabile de control-
L >umrul aparatelor !P din gospodrie 8 varia$il cu trei niveluri= 102 i 3`aparate !P
L Prsta 8 varia$il cu apte niveluri= 68140158240 258340 358440 458540 55864 i 65`
L +enul8 varia$il cu dou niveluri= masculin i *eminin
L >ivel de educa"ie 8 varia$il cu trei niveluri= sczut Ccoala general i mai pu"inD0
mediu Cliceu i ec)ivalentul acestuiaD i #nalt CuniversitarD0
L Statutul pro*esional8 varia$il cu dou niveluri= activ i inactiv.
Palorile ideale pe care tre$uie s le #nregistreze aceste distri$u"ii la nivelul panelului au
*ost determinate pe $aza in*orma"iilor o$"inute att din surse statistice o*iciale C1>SD ct i
din propriul sonda& de con*igurare C.sta$lisment SurveE 8 1'''D.
125
Cercetri calitative pentru nelgerea audienei
5ac prin cercetrile cantitative se o$"in #n primul rnd ci*re0 prin cercetrile calitative se
urmrete descoperirea i #n"elegerea atri$utelor umane0 motiva"iile0 atitudinile sau
comportamentele pu$licului. /cest tip de cercetri au *ost dezvoltate la #nceput #n cadrul
psi)ologiei0 iar mai trziu i #n alte discipline ale tiin"elor sociale. 1omportamentul uman nu
poate *i cuprins doar #n numere i procente pe care le o*er cercetarea cantitativ0 care
rspunde la #ntre$area= ce *ace pu$licul0 ce op"iuni are pu$liculQ Studiile cantiative nu e3plic
de ce pu$licl are anumte reac"ii0 de ce allege o emisiune sau alta i respinge alteleQ 1ele dou
categorii de studii sunt *olosite de o$icei #n paralel0 #n cadrul aceluiai proiect pentru a se
completa ta$loul in*orma"iilor despre un anumit program. ($iectivele generale ale studiilor
calitative #n cercetarea media sunt urmtoarele=
L s descopere componente i atitudini care pot *i testate cantitativO
L s e3tind in*orma"iile o$"inute prin cercetrile cantitativeO
L s o*ere descrieri a *elului #n care sunt *olosite programele i serviciile mediaO
L s de*ineasc aria pentru cercetri sistematice la o scar mai largO
L s elimine arii irelevante ale cercetrilor #ntreprinse la o scar mai mare0 pentru
optimizarea costurilorO
s o*ere idei productorilor0 programatorilor0 comunicatorilor.
:n cadrul cercetrilor cantitative se *olosete un numr mai mic de personae dect #n
eantionul cercetrilor cantitative.
%ocus grupurile sunt o cale *oarte $un de a e3plora modul #n care sunt interpretate
mesa&ele media. Studiile arat c oamenii nu sunt in*luen"a"i doar de mesa&ele media0 ci de al"i
oameni cu care intr #n interac"iune. 1ercetrile calitative pot identi*ica aceste in*luen"e mult
mai clar dect cercetrile cantitative. &etodele cantitative tind s se concentreze asupra
comportamentului individului Cn cadrul familiei, pe c0nd metodele calitative, cum este focus
grupul, plaseaz individual Cn mediul social, unde influenele celorlalte personae pot fi
reproduse i observate. Focus grupurile sunt cele mai comune *orme de cercetare calitativ.
2n *ocus grup este #n esen" un interviu #n grup. Spre deose$ire de interviul *a" #n *a"0 *ocus
grupul nu este structurat #ntre persoana care #ntrea$ i cea care rspunde. 1eea ce o*er
valoare cercetrii este interac"iunea #n cadrul grupului0 care dezvluie in*orma"ii i su$straturi
pe care un interviu o$inuit nu le8ar putea scoate la iveal de la persoana intervievat.
Tema cercetrii. 7rimul lucru care se sta$ilete #n cadrul unei cercetri care utilizeaz
*ocus grupul este tema cercetrii. 1el care comand studiul tre$uie s cad de acord asupra
temelor0 su$iectelor care vor *i investigate i asupra rspunsurilor care tre$uie o$"inute.
2neori se #ntmpl ca $ene*iciarul cercetrii s nu tie ce s caute. 5e e3emplu0 un productor
de emisiuni pentru radio0 emisiuni de divertisment pentru tineret0 a a*lat din sonda&ele de
msurare a audien"ei c programele sale nu sunt populare i nu atrag un numr su*icient de
mare de asculttori. /st*el0 cercetarea calitativ0 condus #n cadrul *ocus grupurilor0 i8ar putea
o*eri cteva rspunsuri la ceea ce ar tre$ui s *ac. ( propunere de cercetare #n acest sens se
va trans*orma #ntr8un ?$rie*@ #ntre ini"iatorul cercetrii i cercettor0 care va con"ine
in*orma"iile primare ale cercetrii= sla$a per*orman" a programului0 ora de di*uzare0 vedetele
emisiunii0 des*urtorul emisiunii0 *ormatul general al emisiuni0 etc.
8biectivele cercetrii. /l doilea punct al cercetrii va *i de*inirea o$iectivelor cercetrii.
5ac rmnem la acelai e3emplu0 tre$uie s descoperim de ce programul nu este popular0
pentru a o*eri apoi solu"ii pentru modi*icarea programului. 6rie*ul va mai con"ine0 pe lng
o$iectivele cercetrii0 un g)id de discu"ie0 o a$ordare de la pro$leme generale la pro$leme
particulare. 7ersoanele care particip la cercetare sunt alese aleator0 dar cu *oarte mare gri&0
ast*el #nct s se simt con*orta$il #mpreun0 avnd e3perien"e i activit"i comune. 5in acest
motiv nu vor *i aduse #n grup persoane de se3 di*erit sau cu di*eren"e mari de vrst0 pentru a
126
evita eventuale con*licte de opinii. 5e asemenea0 nivelul de educa"ie tre$uie s *ie relativ
acelai. :n *unc"ie de o$iectivele cercetrii i de resursele *inanciare disponi$ile se pot
convoca mai multe grupuri de discu"ie0 selectate pe criterii de se30 vrst0 educa"ie0 ocupa"ie0
medii de rezisten"0 comportamente de consum0etc. Focus grupurile sunt #nregistrate aproape
#ntotdeauna video0 rareori numai audio0 pentru a8l eli$era pe moderator de nevoia de a8i nota
i ast*el s poat conduce linitit discu"ia0 care poate dura 283 ore0 #n *unc"ie de su$iect. Nn
cercetarea media focus grupurile sunt folosite foarte des pentru a testa reacia la programele
sau filmele care urmeaz s fie introduse Cn gril. 5e e3emplu0 departamentul de cercetare al
canalului 7;(!P *olosete acest tip de cercetare #nainte de ac)izi"iona un serial gen@/lias@
sau telenovele sud americane. +rupurile $ine selectate sunt invitate s urmreasc episodul
pilot al serialului sau li se prezint0 pe scurt0 #ntreaga ac"iune a *ilmului. /st*el se testeaz
dac serialul pace sau nu.0 dac va *i sau nu ac)izi"ionat. Se va *ace de asemenea un model al
*ilmelor care plac pu$licului0 pentru ca pe viitor0 direc"ia de programe a 7;(!P s
ac)izi"ioneze noi seriale sau s ai$ succesul garantat prin procente. 5e e3emplu0 dac se
ac)izi"ioneaz un serial cu >atalia (neiro i dac se constat c *ilmul are succes #n special
pentru actri"0 atunci se vor cumpra automat alte seriale cu >atalia (neiro0 pentru c se
prezum c succesul este garantat0 *r a se mai organiza alte *ocusgrupuri.
:n cadrul *ocus grupurilor0 pe lng pre*erin"ele legate de actori0 tema muzical0
persoanelor selectate li se cere prerea re*eritor la ritmul #n care va *i di*uzat un serial. 2n
e3emplu este serialul ?!nr i nelinitit@0 unde se pun i ast*el de #ntre$ri= este de a&uns
di*uzarea lui de dou ori pe sptmn sau doar #n 9ee4endQ (rele de di*uzare se sta$ilesc
"innd cont i de opinia pulicului0 dar i de cercetrile cantitative0 cutndu8de ora la care
pu$licul "int este disponi$il.
.nterviul de profunzime este o alt *orm de cercetare calitativ. /cesta este considerat a *i
8bservaia participativ *le3i$il0 *r durat *i30 orientat ctre cel care rspunde. Interviul de
pro*unzime este proiectat ast*el #nct s provoace creativitatea i imagina"ia celui intervievat.
Similar cu *ocus grupurile0 metoda interviului de pro*unzime urmrete s o$"in rspunsuri la
care nu se poate a&unge prin *orme o$inuite de cercetare. Interviurile de pro*unzime se
*olosesc atunci cnd este greu s selectezi un numr su*icient de persoane care s *ormeze
*ocus grupurile. :n cazul interviului #n pro*unzime nu e3ist interac"iune social0 spre
deose$ire de *ocus grupuri. /tunci cnd se urmrete identi*icarea anumitor reac"ii ale
pu$licului0 interviul #n pro*unzime este cea mai e*icient metod.
8bservaia participativ este cea de8a treia *orm de cercetare calitativ i presupune
participarea cercettorului #ntr8o activitate de grup0 triete alturi de o *amilie0 intr #ntr8un
grup sau alt *orme de organizare social pentru a o$serva i a #n"elege modul de
comportament i stilul de via" al oamenilor respectivi. .ste o metod care completeaz *ocus
grupurile. ($serva"ia participativ implic mult mai pu"in control dect *ocus grupul.
1ercettorul urmrete comportamentul oamenilor selecta"i aa cum este #n realitate. 7entru ca
metoda s *unc"ioneze0 el tre$uie s nu intevin su$ nici o *orm #n activitatea grupului
studiat.
E%id de analiz i interpretare a programelor de televiziune
Studiul calitativ al programelor de de televiziune presupune evaluarea unor aspecte care se
re*er att la programele #n sine ct i la condi"iile i conte3tul #n care sunt vizionate aceste
programe. 7ropunem #n continuare un g)id de analiz i interpretare a programelor de
televiziune.
1. .nfluena condiiilor de vizionare presupune s cutm rspunsuri la urmtoarele #ntre$ri=
unde i cu cine v uita"i la televizorQ :ntre$rile legate de aceast tem tre$uie s lmureasc
urmtoarele aspecte= privi"i singur la televizor0 cu prietenii0 cu *amilia sau culcatQ 1ondi"iile
12-
de vizionare se re*er i la alte posi$ile locuri= acas0 #n timp ce mnca"i0 #n localuri pu$lice0 #n
deplasri prin "arQ !ot la acest capitol tre$uie lmurite prin #ntre$ri adecvate modul #n care
in*luen"eaz condi"iile de vizionare percep"ia asupra programelor de televiziune urmrite.
2. :e ce i cum privim la televizor* :ntre$rile care se construiesc pentru acest capitol al
analizei calitative vor *i redactate ast*el #nct s se poat clasi*ica urmtoarele aspecte=
8 de ce ne uitm la televizor i nu *acem altcevaQ 1are ar putea *i alternativele pentru persoana
respectivQ
8cu ce scop v uita"i la televizorQ 7osi$ilele rspunsuri ar putea *i = pentru in*ormare0 pentru a
#nv"a0 pentru a se distra0 pentru a avea un su$iect de discu"ie cu colegii0 pentru a avea un
su$iect pentru o tem de cas #n cazul studen"ilor0 etc.Q
8ce nevoie ale telespectatorilor pot *i considerate ca *iind recompensate prin vizionarea
programului tv respectivQ
8cum pot *i comparate aceste nevoi cu prerea general pe care o ave"i despre televiziuneQ 8ce
aspecte particulare ale programului tv urmrit v8a atras #n mod special aten"ia avnd #n vedere
o$iectivele dumneavoastr curenteQ 8ce detalii ale emisiunii vi s8au prut semni*icativeQ
<a aceste #ntre$ri rspunsurile por *i deose$it dintre cele mai variate= costumele0 lumina0
prezentatoarele0 etc.
/lte #ntre$ri care s rspund temei de la punctul 20 de ce i cum privim la televizor= 8care
dintre interesele0 preocuprile0 scopurile0 nevoile0 rolurile dumneavoastr #n via"a de zi cu zi
au *ost in*luen"ate dup ce a"i urmrit un progrma de televiziuneQ 8pre*era"i s urmri"i
programele tv cu ma3im aten"ie sau pre*era"i s *ace"i conversa"ie cu cei cu care urmri"i
programul respectivQ 1e anume mai in*luen"eaz aceast pre*erin"Q 8dumneavoastr a"i ales
s urmri"i programul tv sau alticneva l8a ales pentru dumneavoastrQ
3. 7oziia programului Cn gril. /tunci cnd este realizat cercetarea calitativ0 este important
s tim pozi"ia programului #n gril. 7entru clari*icarea acestui aspect0 recomandm
urmtoarele #ntre$ri=
8ce a precedat0 cum a *ost #ntrerupt i ce a urmat dup programul vizioatQ 8a"i vzut vreun spot
de promovare a programului respectiv #nainte de vizionareQ 8a"i citit ceva #nainte despre
programul vizionat #n reviste sau cotidianeQ 8cum a *ost promovat programul pe canalul de
televiziune care l8a di*uzatQ 1e *el de scene au *ost *olosite #n spoturile de promovare0 care era
nivelul de ateptare #nainte de a viziona programulQ 1are a *osst impresia dup ce programul a
*ost vizionatQ / *ost #ntrerupt des programul de pauze pu$licitareQ / *ost #ntrerupt i de pauze
pentru promovarea emisiunilor di*uzate de canalul de televiziune respectivQ 1e emisiune a
precedat programulQ 1e emisiune a urmat dup programul vizionatQ /"i continuat s v uita"i
la televizor dup #nc)eierea programului analizatQ 5e ce v8au in*luen"at i cum v8au in*luen"at
modul de percep"ie a programului to"i aceti *actoriQ
4. 5naliza genului programului i a conveniilor folosite Cn realizarea acestuia. :ntre$rile
care ar putea *i puse la acest capitol tre$uie s clari*ice urmtoarele aspecte= 8este uor sau
di*i*cil de ales programul d televiziuneQ 5e ce este uor0 de ce este di*icilQ 8cum ii crui gen
#i apar"ine programul pe care #l alegiO nara"iune0 dram0 etc.
5. 7ublicul int i interpretrile preferate. :ntre$rile pentru acest capitol de cercetare pot *i
urmtoarele=
8ce *el de pu$lic crede"i au avut #n vedere realizatorii programului pe care l8a"i urmrit= vrst0
gen0 statut social0 statut economic0 etnie0 apartenen" religioasQ 1e indicii ave"i #n sus"inerea
punctului dumneavoastr de vedereQ
8ctre ce *el de interpretri este desc)is programul urmritQ 1e elemente din program au *ost
interpretate #ntrun *el de realizatori i #n cel *el au *ost interpretate de dumneavoastrQ 5e ce
crede"i c se #ntmpl acest lucruQ
12%
8alege"i un element din programul vizionat i #ncerca"i s e3plica"i ceea ce realizatorii au
#ncercat s realizeze.
6. Structura programului. Fiecare program de televiziune are o structur speci*ic care *ace
parte din domeniile ce tre$uie evaluate #n cadrul unei analize calitative. 7osi$ilele #ntre$ri #n
cadrul analizei calitative pot *i urmtoarele= 8cum a"i descrie structura general a programuluiQ
8care sunt pr"ile programuluiQ 8ac"iunea a avut elemente predicti$ileQ 8ce va surprins #n
cadrul programului vizionat i de ceQ
-. 7ersona(e i participani. ( analiz calitativ nu poate scpa din vedere0 participan"ii0
persona&ele programului vizionat. :n acest caz #ntre$rile pot *i urmtoarele= 8care au *ost
persona&ele pozitive i negativeQ 1are au *ost mesa&ele pe care acestea le8a transmisQ
8v8a surprins ceva anume #n prezentarea persona&elorQ
8pute"i *ace compara"ii #ntre persona&eQ
8considera"i c sunt plauzi$ile situa"iile #n care persona&ele au *ost prezentateQ 8e3ist
asemnri #ntre dumneavoastr 0 prietenii dumneavoastr i participan"ii la programQ
%. 7roducia de televiziune i tehnicile de editare i filmare. /naliza calitativ presupune i un
studiu al te)nicilor de *ilmare i de editare *olosite #n realizarea produc"iei vizionate. /naliza
se va *ace pe o #nregistrare scurt0 cteva minute i va urmri= #ncadraturi0 ung)iuri de *ilmare0
micrile camerei de luat vederi0 lumini0 etc.
'. :nc)eia"i studiul calitativ e3plicnd cum v8a n*luen"at studiul calitativ modul de alegerea
programelor de televiziune pe care dori"i s le urmri"i.
6espre eIamen
.3aminarea la acest curs va *i realizat cu a&utorul testelor. 7entru veri*icarea individual
a *ost inclus un e3emplu de test identic cu cele care vor *i utilizate la e3aminare. :n prima
*orm0 testul este *r rspunsuri. :n a doua variant0 testul include i rspunsurile. 7entru a
#n"elege ct mai $ine *elul cum tre$uie s rspunde"i0 v s*tuim s *olosi"i prima *orm0 s
rspunde"i la #ntre$ri i apoi s veri*ica"i rspunsurile corecte la #ntre$ri care au *ost
eviden"iate prin litere #ngroate C$oldD.
Teme pentru studiu individual
7entru a utiliza e*icient acest curs0 v propunem cteva teme individuale de lucru=
1. 2tiliza"i o camer video comercial i realiza"i toate tipurile de #ncadraturi prezentate #n
curs.
2. 5ac ave"i un calculator multimedia0 instala"i un so*t comercial de editare i realiza"i o
produc"ie proprie0 cu durata de ma3imum cinci minute. <a #ntlnirile de tutoriat0 veni"i cu
aceast produc"ie pentru a o discuta.
3. :nregistra"i o emisiune de televiziune0 la alegere i #ntocmi"i o gril de analiz con*orm
propunerilor i recomandrilor de la pagina 106 10-. 7e $aza acestei grile analiza"i
produc"ia de televiziune vizionat i #ntocmi"i o lucrare cuprins #ntre 6 % pagini0 redactat
computerizat0 corp 120 la un rnd0 con*orm normelor academice #n vigoare. 7rezenta"i aceast
12'
lucrare la orele de tutoriat. ($"inerea datelor de audien" a emisiunilor nu este o$ligatorie
#ntruct televiziunile consider aceste date ca *iind con*iden"iale.
4. /naliza"i te)nicile de *ilmare i editare *olosite la realizarea unui &urnal de televiziune0 la
alegere. /naliza se va *ace utiliznd cunotin"ele prezentate la !ema 3 i !ema 4. 1oncluzii.
7rezentarea lucrrii se va *ace la orele de tutoriat sau se va trimite prin mail la adresa
ion)stavreMcomunicare)ro cel trziu cu o lun #nainte de data e3amenului. .ste nevoie de un
rgaz pentru a putea citi toate re*eratele.
5. /naliza"i o emisiune tal48s)o9 prin prisma recomadrilor generale privind interviul i a
recomandrilor de la pag. 106 10-.
6. 7entru completarea evalurii pe parcurs0 studen"ii vor alege din *iierele a*late la *inalul
cursului0 un articol #n lim$a *rancez sau englez0 #l vor traduce0 #l vor pune pe un suport
electronic0 cd0 i #l vor aduce la e3amen. Traducerea i articolul Cn original vor fi puse pe
acelai suport, pentru a puteea verifica traducerea. !raducerea va *i semnat con*orm datelor
de #nscriere la *acultate0 pentru a *i uor de identi*icat autorul. 7entru studen"ii din provincie0
cd8ul cu traducerea va *i predat la intrarea #n sala de e3amen.
Concluzie
(iecare student va ntocmi pentru eIamen dou lucrri" un re8erat con8orm punctului ;
sau < i va traduce un material din 8iierele ataate) 2e8eratul va 8i prezentat cu o lun
nainte de eIamen1 iar traducerea la eIamen) Cele dou materiale 8ac parte din
eIaminarea pe parcurs speci8ic nvmntului la distan)
*aterialul aneIat este !ogat1 rezultat al cercetrii pe o durat mai lung de timp a unor
surse desc%ise) >neIarea unor ast8el de materiale este o noutate i are drept scop
o8erirea studenilor a unei !i!liogra8ii utiliza!ile i la lucrrile de licen)
130
Teme pentru disertaie
1. 5ivertismentul i audiovizualul romnesc. Studii de caz Cse vor prezenta comparativ0 o
emisiune de divertisment de la televiziunea pu$lic i o emisiune de divertisment de la o
televiziune comercialO am$ele emisiuni sunt la alegereD.
2. !endin"e #n divertismentul european de televiziune.
3. ( analiz comparativ a &urnalelor de tiri de la primele patru televiziuni romneti.
4. !eleviziunile de tiri #n ;omnia. Studiu de caz= ;ealitatea !P0 /ntena 30 >a"ional !v.
5. !eleviziunile europene i procesul de digitalizare a transmisiei semnalului.
6. Fragmentarea pu$licului i televiziunile de ni.
-. /specte semiotice ale lim$a&ului de tiri.
%. Studii de gen i studii culturale.
'. Studii despre telenovelele romneti.
10. Studii re*eritoare la *ilmul documentar.
11. Speci*icul produc"iei de televiziune pentru internet.
12. Speci*icul produc"iei de televiziune pentru tele*onia mo$il.
13. Intenetul i comunicarea audiovizual.
14. 1ampanii de pu$licitate video pe internet.
15. .uropenizarea societ"ii romneti cu a&utorul audiovizualului. 7entru aceast tem e3ist
$il$liogra*ie ane3at cursului.
1ei care sunt interesa"i de alegerea unei teme de diserta"ie din acest domeniu pot veni i cu alte
propuneri care vor *i discutate cu pro*esorul coordonator0 urmnd a *i acceptate sau nu.
!.S! 5. P.;IFI1/;. Fa;a ;aS72>S2;I
1. 2n cadru cinematogra*ic este=
aD. ceea ce se poate vedea prin o$iectivul camerei i poate *i #nregistrat $D.
ceea ce intr #n cmpul vizual al operatorului cD. ceea ce #nregistreaz
camera *r s se vad #n o$iectiv
2. .3presia vo= pop semni*ic=
aD. ec)ivalentul unui sonda& de opinie pe o anumit tem
$D. curentul de opinie privind o anumit tem
cD. parerea unui specialist despre un anumit su$iect
3. Intre$rile la care rspunde o tire sunt=
aD. cum0 unde0 cndQ $D. ce0 unde0 de ce0 cum0
cndQ cD. cine0 ce0 unde0 cum0 cnd0 de ceQ
4. 1omunicatul de pres tre$uie s cuprind=
aD. data di*uzrii0 institu"ia de la care provine0 persoana creia se adreseaz
$D. data di*uzrii i locul di*uzrii cD. institu"ia de la care provine0 persoana
de contact0 tampila institu"iei
5. <im$a&ul pentru televiziune tre$uie s *ie=
aD. ct mai o*icial
$D. cu *raze lungi i cuprinztoare
cD. simplu0 clar0 direct0 neutru
131
6. Interviul tre$uie s con"in #ntre$ri=
aD. cu mult in*orma"ie i ct mai cuprinztoare
$D. clare i scurte0 desc)ise0 semi#nc)ise i #nc)ise
cD. doar desc)ise
-. :n planul general corpul uman se vede= aD. #n #ntregime0
*r a se vedea i mediul am$iant $D. #n #ntregime0 dar #n
propor"ie mic *a" de mediul am$iant cD. de la $ru #n sus
%. 7lanul mediu e speci*ic= aD.
dialogului dintre persoana&e $D.
momentelor emo"ionante cD.
&urnalelor tv pentru prezentatori
'. 7rim8planul este *olosit= aD. mai ales in
&urnale0 pentru prezentatori
$D. pentru a arta importan"a persona&ului0 #n raport cu locul ac"iunii
cD. pentru a descrie locul ac"iunii
10. +ros8planul ne arat persona&ul= aD. de la genunc)i #n sus
$D. de la $aza picioarelor #n sus cD. de la nivelul $r$iei pn #n
cretetul capului0 uor tiat
11. 7lanul detaliu con"ine= aD. pr"i ale
corpului uman $D. pr"i ale unui o$iect cD.
*ata persona&ului de su$ $r$ie #n sus
12. 2n reporter in transmisie direct e #ncadrat de o$icei #n= aD.
plan detaliu $D. gros8plan cD. plan american
13. 7entru a reda mre"ia unui persona& se *olosete=
aD. ung)iul normal de *ilmare $D. *ilmarea #n contre8
plon&ee cD. *ilmarea #n plon&ee
14. !rans*ocarea #nainte Czoom8inD este= aD. deplasarea su$iectului
ctre camera video $D. deplasarea camerei video ctre su$iect cD.
apropierea su$iectului printr8o micare a lentilelor o$iectivului
15. 5ollE0 stadE i macaraua sunt= aD. elemente de decor #ntr8
un studiou tv $D. dispozitive de micare a camerei video cD.
pr"i din sistemul de iluminare a platoului de televiziune
132
16. 5ispari"ia gradual #n al$ sau negru a unui cadru se
numete= aD. *ade8out $D. dissolve cD. 9ipe
1-. .ditarea video este = aD. o succesiune de micri de camer
video $D. scrierea unui te3t de televiziune dup anumite reguli
cD. aezarea cadrelor unul dup altul #ntr8o succesiune sta$ilit
1%. 1are sunt regulile generale de realizare a interviuluiQ
1'. 1are sunt metodele de manevrare a timpului prin editareQ
20. 1are sunt caracteristicile mesa&ului audiovizualQ
21. 1are sunt indicatorii de audien" i ce reprezint *iecareQ
2NS7A3SA2IK0 T0STAKAI 60 @02I(IC>20
1. 2n cadru cinematogra*ic este=
aC) ceea ce se poate vedea prin o!iectivul camerei i poate 8i
nregistrat
$D. ceea ce intr #n cmpul vizual al operatorului
cD. ceea ce #nregistreaz camera *r s se vad #n o$iectiv
2. .3presia vo= pop semni*ic=
aD. ec)ivalentul unui sonda& de opinie pe o anumit tem
!C) curentul de opinie privind o anumit tem
cD. parerea unui specialist despre un anumit su$iect
3. Intre$rile la care rspunde o tire sunt=
aD. cum0 unde0 cndQ
$D. ce0 unde0 de ce0 cum0 cndQ
cC) cine1 ce1 unde1 cum1 cnd1 de ce.
4. 1omunicatul de pres tre$uie s cuprind=
aD. data di*uzrii0 institu"ia de la care provine0 persoana creia se
adreseaz
!C) data di8uzrii i locul di8uzrii
cC) instituia de la care provine1 persoana de contact1 tampila
instituiei
5. <im$a&ul pentru televiziune tre$uie s
*ie=
aD. ct mai o*icial
$D. cu *raze lungi i cuprinztoare
cC) simplu1 clar1 direct1 neutru
6. . Interviul tre$uie s con"in #ntre$ri=
aD. cu mult in*orma"ie i ct mai cuprinztoare
!C) clare i scurte1 desc%ise1 seminc%ise i nc%ise
cD. doar desc)ise
133
- :n planul general corpul uman se vede=
aD. #n #ntregime0 *r a se vedea i mediul am$iant
!C) n ntregime1 dar n proporie mic 8a de mediul am!iant
cD. de la $ru #n sus
%. 7lanul mediu e speci*ic=
aC) dialogului dintre persoana#e
$D. momentelor emo"ionante
cD. &urnalelor tv pentru prezentatori
'. 7rim8planul este *olosit=
aC) mai ales in #urnale1 pentru prezentatori
!C) pentru a arta importana persona#ului1 n raport cu locul
aciunii
cD. pentru a descrie locul ac"iunii
10. +ros8planul ne arat persona&ul=
aD. de la genunc)i #n sus
$D. de la $aza picioarelor #n sus
cC) de la nivelul !r!iei pn n cretetul capului1 uor tiat
11. 7lanul detaliu con"ine=
aC) pri ale corpului
uman !C) pri ale unui
o!iect
cD. *ata persona&ului de su$ $r$ie #n sus
12. 2n reporter in transmisie direct e #ncadrat de o$icei #n=
aD. plan detaliu
$D. gros8plan
cC) plan american
13. 7entru a reda mre"ia unui persona& se
*olosete=
aD. ung)iul normal de *ilmare
!C) 8ilmarea n contre-plon#ee
cD. *ilmarea #n plon&ee
14. !rans*ocarea #nainte Czoom8inD este=
aD. deplasarea su$iectului ctre camera video
$D. deplasarea camerei video ctre su$iect
cC) apropierea su!iectului printr-o micare a lentilelor o!iectivului
15. 5ollE0 stadE i macaraua sunt=
aD. elemente de decor #ntr8un studiou tv
!C) dispozitive de micare a camerei video
cD. pr"i din sistemul de iluminare a platoului de televiziune
16. 5ispari"ia gradual #n al$ sau negru a unui cadru se numete=
aC) 8ade-out
$D.
dissolve
cD. 9ipe
134
1-. .ditarea video este =
aD. o succesiune de micri de camer video
$D. scrierea unui te3t de televiziune dup anumite reguli
cC) aezarea cadrelor unul dup altul ntr-o succesiune sta!ilit
1%. 1are sunt regulile generale de realizare a interviuluiQ
1'. 1are sunt metodele de manevrare a timpului prin editareQ
20. 1are sunt caracteristicile mesa&ului audiovizualQ
21. 1are sunt indicatorii de audien" i ce reprezint *iecareQ
2ltimele trei #ntre$ri nu au rspunsuri pentru c *ac parte din categoria #ntre$rilor cu
rspuns desc)is i rspunsurile pot *i gsite la capitolele respective din curs. /cest tip de
#ntre$ri o*er studen"ilor posi$ilitatea de a rspunde *r a *i necesar reproducerea e3act a
unui te3t0 #ns tre$uie prezentate in*orma"iile de $az care sunt cuprinse #n capitolele
respective de curs. /cest gen de #ntre$ri urmresc s identi*ice i alte lecturi ale studen"ilor i
orice *el de cunotin"e suplimentare #n acest domeniu.
ine journalism. The terms have changed, from zines, to personal Web
sites, to blogs, but they all share a common character
Citizen journalism, in other words, is a rediscovery of the essential truth Carey articulated years before the nternet was
invented.
Throughout the year the pattern of citizens becoming pro-active participants in their own journalism continued to gain
momentum, becoming part of the political campaign, gaining economic muscle and even becoming something that the
mainstream media embraced rather than something they saw as a threat. A larger number of newspapers, indeed, began to
allow users to weigh in on particular stories and to upload their own photographs. A few even incorporated citizen blogs
alongside those of staff reporters. And perhaps since overhead and production costs are relatively low for corporate media
companies, citizen-generated content is increasingly becoming part of these sites' DNA.
Citizen journalism, in short, is becoming less something that is dismissed as the amateur hour before the professionals take the
stage and more something that enriches the conversation.
n the midst of these developments, the earlier form of citizen voice blogs began to grow in ways that raised question
about whether it was becoming less a part of the grass roots and more a part of the establishment. A group of celebrity
bloggers, for example, have emerged, and some have even become familiar faces on TV.
Web 2.0
For many industry analysts, 2006 was the year Web 2.0 made an impact on online media.
Web 2.0 is a broad term, first coined by Dale Dougherty and popularized by O'Reilly Media, a publisher of books and
magazines mainly geared toward the technology community. t refers to any media that involve the interaction and participation
of the consumer: uploading and disseminating text, audio, video and digital photographs over the Web. Well-known examples
of Web 2.0 include Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Wikipedia, and MySpace.
The number of Americans participating in Web 2.0 activities suggests it could soon become a major component of the online
experience, according to survey research conducted by the Pew nternet & American Life Project.
Web 2.0 Activities
% of Internet Users
Who Have Done
This
Activity
Survey
Date
36
Uploaded photos online where others can
see them
Decembe
r 2006
32
Rated a product, service or person using an
online rating system
Decembe
r 2006
27
Shared files from your own computer with
others online
June 2005
22 Shared something online that you created
yourself, such as your own artwork,
photos, stories or video
Decembe
r 2006
22 Taken material found online like songs, text, or
images and remixed it into your own artistic
creation
Decembe
r 2006
20 Created a profile online that others can see
Decembe
r 2006
14 Created or worked on your own Web page
Decembe
r 2006
14
Created or worked on Web pages or blogs for
others, including friends, groups you belong to,
or for work
Decembe
r 2006
5%6
Created or worked on your own online journal or 8
blog
Decemb
er 2006
Source: Pew nternet & American Life Project, Riding the Waves of Web 2.0, October 5, 2006 and updated surveys
As they seek to increase ad revenue and attract more young readers, a number of online newspaper companies have picked
up on the Web 2.0 phenomenon, creating their own MySpace-like social networking pages that will enable users to create their
own communities, write their own news stories, and communicate with each other.
Many such sites are particularly focused on local events, or hyperlocal journalism as their practitioners describe it. At the News-
Press, a Gannett newspaper in Fort Myers, Florida, for instance, the paper asked retired engineers and accountants in the
community to evaluate documents and to evaluate the cost of connecting a new home to sewage lines. The citizen feedback
was then used to help the reporters write articles on the question, leading to the resignation of a public official. The approach
came to be known as pro-am, after a golf tournament that includes both professional golfers and amateur players.
2
Some newspaper sites are taking it a step further. n Columbia, Mo., for example, Mymissourian is a joint print-Web creation that
allows readers to write their own local news stories. The stories are edited by students from the University of Missouri School
of Journalism and then uploaded to the Web. Beginning in October 2006, the site's staff became responsible for producingin
print--all the news coverage on Saturdays that had been published by the Missourian, a daily newspaper, in order to subsidize
its online finances. According to the editor, this move was a reversal of the print-to-online model that newspapers have been
following.
3
At the same time, a number of grassroots sites have emerged from outside the tradition of mainstream media. Perhaps the
best-known example is backfence.com, a collection of 13 Web sites from around the country, mainly concentrated in suburban
Washington, D.C. Visitors to an individual backfence.com site can not only read and produce local news, but can also view
advertisements and classifieds. There was some bad news for the site in January 2007, however, when it was reported that
Backfence had laid off a number of employees. ts co-founder, Mark Potts, refused to disclose the exact number.
4
According to a study released in February by the University of Maryland's J-Lab, such hyperlocal citizen media sites that rely
on user-generated content are quickly proliferating. J-Lab has been able to identify 700 to 800 of them, the majority of which
have been launched in the past two years.
The sites employ a wide variety of business and editorial models, but they appear to share a common enthusiasm for creating
community conversations. Among the respondents to the J-Lab survey, 73% said they considered their sites a success and
82% planned to stick with their ventures indefinitely. Four out of five said their sites provided local information not found
anywhere else, and three-quarters indicated that they helped build connections to the community. Slightly more than a quarter of
those surveyed thought these operations increased voter turnout.
5
There are questions, however, about the economics of citizen media. The J-Lab report acknowledged that many of the outlets
were shoestring operations hampered by a lack of human and financial resources. And even as it predicted that the medium
was here to stay, the study also anticipated significant turnover and burnout among the operators.
When asked how much it cost to launch their citizen media sites, 43% of the survey respondents put the figure at less than
$1,000. n addition, 51% said they didn't need to earn revenue to continue operating. Asked if their revenues exceeded
operating costs, 42% said no and another 38% did not know.
6
Some of these operations are diversifying their revenue base and developing distinctive brands such as the Rocky
Mountain-based New West, which has created related businesses in advertising and publishing. But as the report suggests,
many of the sites at this point are essentially mom-and-pop operations.
Perhaps the key question is whether an economic model built almost exclusively around ad revenue will prove sustainable in the
long run. According to some analysts who study citizen media sites, the sites urgently need to create multiple revenue streams,
not just from advertising, especially in times when revenue and profits are down.
But increasingly, analysts believe consumers will come to demand the ability to interact with the news producers, or they will
5%-
migrate elsewhere. ndeed, some industry analysts argue that online newspapers and other news sites need to offer more
interactivity in order to survive. What makes the nternet so attractive is consumers can communicate with consumers. And they
can communicate with [the publication] in a way they feel comfortable with, said Gerard Broussard, senior partner and director
of media analytics at GroupM nteraction, at the Media magazine Forecast 2007 conference.
Blogs
For all the growth in interactivity, perhaps the purest form remains blogging, or personal Weblogs, the phenomenon in which
someone creates a site and becomes an instant own publisher and writer. After seeming to stall or even lose some momentum
in 2005, there was evidence that blogs regained momentum again in 2006. Whether a political season had something to do
with that, or whether the gain was more widespread, is uncertain.
Blog Readership
The most recent data suggest a significant increase in the number of people who read blogs. Survey results from the Pew
nternet & American Life Project indicates that the percentage of online users who say they have ever read blogs rose in
February 2006 to 39%, up markedly from 27% a year earlier. That puts the total number of Americans who now read blogs at
approximately 57 million.
7
But to put that in perspective, a February 2006 Gallup survey found that reading blogs (20%) is far less popular than e-mail
(87%), checking news and weather (72%), and shopping and travel (both at 52%), and is still behind some online activities that
are generally considered to be fringe use: instant messaging (28%), auctions (23%), and videocasts and downloading music
(22%).
8
Of course, the rise of blogs has its roots in politics, when bloggers gave the 2004 Presidential contender Howard Dean early,
albeit short-lived, momentum. Two years later, it appeared a higher number of Democrats read blogs than Republicans.
According to data from Gallup, 15% of the population who said they are frequent blog readers identified themselves as
Democrats, compared to just 6% who said they were Republican and 7% who considered themselves independent.
9
What types of blogs are people reading? While the blogs that generate the most buzz are ones devoted to politics, many
popular blogs focus on other topics. Research from Edelman, a public relations firm, found that of the top 100 blogs in the U.S.,
34% cover technology, 26% are about culture, and 25% are devoted to politics. The study also found that just 3% were what it
called personal diaries.
10
Blog ea!ershi"
Percent of adult internet users, 2004-2006
5%%
Source: Pew nternet & American Life Project
Design Your Own Chart
Blog Creators
Blogs include
everything from a
personal diary about
bird watching to an
outlet that breaks news
about current events to
a promotional public
relations tool on a car
manufacturing site to a
celebrity-filled gossip
page. Some are the
voice of just one
person. Others serve
more as forums open
to any registered user
to post opinions.
The number of
bloggers, those who
produce content as
opposed to merely
reading it, did not
appear to grow in 2006.
The most recent data
from the Pew nternet
& American Life Project
suggest that just 8% of
online users say they
author their own
blogs.
11
n previous years of the
annual report, we
reported that bloggers
tend to be younger,
wealthier, and more
tech-savvy than the
general online
population. The most
recent data suggest
this is still largely true.
For instance, the Pew
nternet & American
Life Project reports that
more than half of all
bloggers are under 30.
Moreover, bloggers are
avid news consumers:
95% report reading
news online, compared
to 73% of the general
online population, Pew
nternet found.
We've also begun to
understand more about the attitudes
bloggers hold toward their work. Most
bloggers, again according to Pew
nternet, do not think of themselves
as journalists. Over a third (37%) say
their most popular topic is their life
and experience (37%), more than
twice number (11%) who named
politics and news.
12
t was long the consensus that since
the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the
blogosphere was dominated by
conservative voices. But a close
examination of the 12 most popular
political blogs, according to a June
2006 listing from Technorati, revealed
that at least at the top, blog voices
lean to the left. Seven can be
considered liberal, four conservative,
and one without a clear partisan
nature.
#ro$th of Bloggers
2002-2006, percent of adult internet
users
5%'
Source: Pew nternet & American Life Project
Design Your Own Chart
Blogging Economics
Except for a very small
group, most bloggers
make no money from
their endeavors.
Just 8% of bloggers
report generating any
income from their Web
sites, according to
survey data from the
Pew nternet &
American Life Project.
Among those bloggers
who report making
money, most say they
do so by selling items
on their sites (68%) or
through advertising
(56%). Smaller
numbers receive
donations from readers
(29%) or secure
subscriptions to
premium content (19%).
For now, anyway, that
seems acceptable.
Making money was the
least-offered reason for
blogging.
13
%otives for
Blogging
%otive for blogging
To e&"ress yourself creatively
To !ocu'ent your "ersonal e&"eriences or
share ite' $ith others
To stay in touch $ith frien!s an! fa'ily
To share "ractical (no$le!ge or s(ills $ith
others
To 'otivate other "eo"le to action
To entertain "eo"le
To store resources or infor'ation that is
i'"ortant to you
To influence the $ay other "eo"le thin(
To net$or( or 'eet ne$ "eo"le
To 'a(e 'oney
5'0
Source: Pew nternet & American Life Project
Those bloggers who do earn some money have been hesitant to say publicly how much revenue the ads on their sites have
generated. But the blogger ad market appears fairly small; one estimate puts it at $50 million to $100 million. But according to a
research study conducted by Outsell nc., which surveyed 1,200 advertisers in November 2005, blog advertising was expected
to grow 43% in 2006.
14
A few years ago, many media critics offered varying degrees of skepticism toward the fanfare that surrounded the emergence of
blogs. And a minority even questioned how long they would be around.
Heading into 2007, some of that skepticism shared by much of the public as well remains. How much can one trust the
accuracy of news and information posted on blogs? How can blogs survive without a reliable revenue stream?
t may be a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Much of the talk a few years ago that blogs would supplant
traditional media seems antiquated now. The relationship between blogs and traditional media, in the end, may be more
complementary, even synergistic, as time moves on. Citizen journalism, and the interactivity it promises in Web 2.0,
increasingly seems to offer the potential of enriching traditional journalism (by enriching citizens), not threatening it.
)ootnotes
1.James Carey: A Critical Reader , Edited by Eve Stryker Munson and Catherine A. Warren, University of Minnesota Press,
1997.
2.Frank Ahrens, Gannett to Change ts Papers' Approach, The Washington Post, November 7, 2006
3.Tom Grubisich, ' Potempkin Village' Redux, Online Journalism Review, November 19, 2006
4.n early January, news reports were circulated that Backfence had laid off a number of employees, though its co-founder,
Mark Potts, refused to quantify the exact number. Source: Amy Gahran, Backfence Backpedals: Money Lessons, Poynter
nstitute, January 10, 2007
5.CitMedia Sites are Here to Stay, The nstitute for nteractive Journalism, February 5, 2007
6.bid
-.Amanda Lenhart and Susannah Fox, Bloggers: A portrait of the nternet's new storytellers, Pew nternet & American Life
Project, July 19, 2006
%.According to the same survey from Gallup, those who identify themselves as dedicated blog readers are still slightly skewed
more towards men (24%) than women (17%), with younger people 18 to 29 years of age (28%) also more likely to be heavier
readers than Americans over the age of 50 (17%).
'.Blog Readership Bogged Down, The Gallup Poll, February 10, 2006
10. Brian Morrissey, Tech, Politics Dominate Blogosphere, Adweek, October 11, 2006
11.Amanda Lenhart and Susannah Fox, Bloggers: A portrait of the nternet's new storytellers, Pew nternet & American Life
Project, July 19, 2006
12. bid
13. bid
14. Enid Burns, Online Seizes More of the Advertising Mix, ClickZ, February 13, 2006
5'1
*et$or( T+
Intro
By the Project for Excellence in Journalism
t was the year people had been waiting for in network news.
Finally things were going to change in a medium where so much seemed so constant the format, the style, and
for the previous two decades the faces of the anchors. Even the erosion of the audience was steady, roughly a
million fewer viewers of nightly news a year.
This year, 2006, was expected to be different. One network hoped to create a new format of two young anchors,
one in the field and one on the set a dashing young man and a beautiful young mother an arrangement
conceived in part for demographics and in part for moving the news online.
Another network said it planned to rethink the evening newscast, to bring arguably the biggest name in the
business from the morning and to shake up the content and the audience of evening news.
The medium's long-time leader, meanwhile, seemed possibly vulnerable, losing its biggest star in the morning, and
banking on continuity, not change, in the evening.
Two things seemed most likely to occur. With all the new attention, promotion and innovation, the audience for
network news might suddenly begin to grow again. Or there might suddenly be more loss. When the past
generation of respected anchors left their chairs, would the largely older audience decide they didn't like the new
faces and new styles and drop away? Change could revive the networks. t could also hasten their decline.
t turned out, at least in 2006, that neither occurred. Network evening news would end the year losing audience at
the same pace as it had for years.
The stunning wounding of ABC's Bob Woodruff in raq destroyed the plans at ABC, and the network turned to a
respected veteran, Charles Gibson, to take over its newscast, something that audiences seemed to like. The
experiments at CBS with Katie Couric, meanwhile, can't yet be judged, but the network's hope that after a few
months she would have gained as many new viewers as she lost, and built from there, had not materialized when
the year ended. Critics and audiences alike seemed unmoved by CBS's changes to the evening news.
Morning news, after a shakeup in personnel, saw some modest losses, but nothing different from the year before.
None of this is to say news is not still enormously profitable and an important part of the networks' operations.
Even the decline of television news magazines seems to have stabilized. The old model, in which each news
5'2
magazine is a distinct brand rather than simply an advertisement for the news division overall, seems to be back
in fashion
But as the year ended, NBC made the biggest noise by coining something it called NBCU 2 0 Boiled down, what
it meant was the company was scaling back on television t said it would invest more online So far, it seems to
mean that the nternet was immune from the cutting
Au!ience
n 2006, three trends stood out regarding the audience for network news
L There was yet another decline in the total number of evening news viewers While NBC's evening
newscast lost viewers, ABC's audience size remained the same At CBS, the audience for the evening
newscast over all remained the same even though Katie Couric's debut in September produced a
dramatic surge By the end of the year the CBS Evening News audience had shrunk roughly 26% from
that momentary peak
L n the race for the top spot in the evening, there were no changes in rankings, but ABC, with a new
anchor and focus, may be closing the gap with NBC
, After a year of departures and new faces in the anchor chair, morning news lost viewers, and its total
audience size was at its smallest level of this decade
*ightly *e$scasts
Despite new anchors, promotional campaigns and press attention, the audience for the evening network news
programs continued to shrink in 2006
The total evening network news audience now stands at around 26 million, down about a million from the year
before t has now dropped by about 1 million a year for the last 25 years
Ratings, which count the number of television sets in the U S tuned to a given program, declined almost 4%
between November 2005 and November 2006, falling to 18 2, down from 18 9 in November 2005, according to
data from Nielsen Media Research
1
That is about the same pace as in recent years
2
Meanwhile, share the percentage of just those sets in use at a given time that are tuned to a program
declined more, 8%, to 34 in November 2006, from 37 the same time in 2005 Now, only about a third of the TV sets
in use at the dinner hour are tuned to the network news
There may be some audiences left out of Nielsen's methodology, however For example, ratings may fail to
capture television sets in bars, restaurants, college dormitories, military barracks, nursing homes, prisons, and
other institutions
-vening *e$s +ie$ershi". All *et$or(s
November 1980 to November 2006
5'3
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license *
Ratings taken for month of November.
Design Your Own Chart
Comparing the 2006
data with figures from
5, 25, and nearly 40
years earlier puts the
trend in clear relief. n
1969, the three network
newscasts had a
combined 50 rating and
an 85 share. n 1980,
the year that CNN was
launched, they had a
37 rating and a 75
share.
3
As of November
2006, ratings had fallen
64% since 1969, 51%
since 1980, and 23%
since 2000. Share,
meanwhile, had fallen
60% since 1969, 55%
since 1980, and 23%
since 2000.
-vening *e$s
atings
November 1980 to
November 2006
5'4
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license * Ratings taken for month of November.
We have outlined the factors behind the decline in earlier editions of this report. Those factors including changing
lifestyles, work schedules and commute times; competition from cable and the nternet; cutbacks in news budgets
and personnel; and even some apparent general decline in interest in news.
4
Yet the data suggest there has been only a relatively small decline in TV watching itself, or even, cumulatively,
watching news on TV, if one includes all the news available. Using 2006 survey data from the Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press, the percentage of people who report watching television news has actually
increased 2 points since 2000 (though down 4 points over all in the last 10 years). Furthermore, the amount of
time people spend watching news (measured in minutes spent yesterday, as the survey phrases it) is up since the
beginning of this century and down just 2 minutes a day over the last 10 years.
5
*ightly *e$s Au!ience De'ogra"hics
One well-noted trend in network television is that the audience for the evening newscast skews older than it does
for other media.
n 2006, the median age of nightly news viewers stayed at roughly 60 years, according to data provided to PEJ by
MagnaGlobal USA.
6
Those numbers suggest that the three broadcast networks have considerable work to do if they hope to bring the
average age into the 25-to-54 range, the demographic group most prized by marketers. t is not clear whether that
can happen on television, or to what extent younger viewers ever made up the nightly news audience.
One potential new component in this is whether the networks can get younger viewers to watch their news
through other means online, on podcasts, or downloaded to other devices on demand. Younger consumers are
earlier adapters to these newer, more mobile technologies.
7
%e!ian Age of *ightly *e$s +ie$ers
2002, 2004, 2005, 2006
5'5
Source: MagnaGlobal USA
Design Your Own Chart
The ace A'ong the
*et$or(s
Despite declining
audiences, the race for
the top slot in network
evening news ratings
remains intense, the
subject of significant
press coverage, and
has significant financial
implications. At stake
are tens of millions of
advertising dollars, and
the changing line-up of
anchors in 2006
suggested that some of
those dollars might
change hands. Charles
Gibson replaced
Elizabeth Vargas and
Bob Woodruff at ABC in
late May 2006. Katie
Couric took over from
the interim anchor Bob
Schieffer at CBS in
September 2006. NBC
News continued to
showcase Brian
Williams, who was in
his third year since
Tom Brokaw left the
anchor desk.
By the year's end the
anchor changes not
only failed to stanch the
loss of audience, but
they also did not affect
the network news
leadership board, at
least not yet.
As of January 2007,
NBC's Nightly News
with Brian Williams was
still on top. n
November 2006,
Nightly News had a
rating of 6.5, a 12
share and an average
viewing audience of
around 9.5 million a
night. Those figures
represented a drop of
10% in ratings and a
14% decline in share
from November 2005.
That is a significant
drop, the biggest at
NBC since 1982.
The second-place
newscast, ABC's
World News,
meanwhile, seemed to
be closing the gap
with NBC by keeping
its ratings steady. ts
November-to-
November ratings
were unchanged from
2005 to 2006, at 6.2.
And its share stayed
the same as well, at
12. (The number of
viewers dropped 1%,
and now stands at
roughly 8.8 million a
night.)
On Election night
2006 always a
hotly contested night
among the networks
ABC managed to
beat its competitors.
Appearing a half-hour
before the other
networks and
immediately following
the popular Dancing
With the Stars, ABC
attracted 9.7 million
viewers that night,
compared to 7 million
for NBC and 6.3
million for CBS,
according to data from
Nielsen Media
Research.
8
5'6
The most obvious factor that might explain ABC's new-found strength was its new anchor, Charles Gibson.
Gibson arrived after 16 months of turmoil at ABC. First, Peter Jennings, the networks anchor for 22 years, lost a
battle to cancer. Next, the newly appointed co-anchor Bob Woodruff was seriously injured by a bomb in raq, and
the co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas, never slotted to front the program alone, left the anchor chair to spend more time
with her new baby. As one news division staff member said, Morale is starting to suffer.People are wondering
'When are we finally going to have a captain of the ship?'
9
n May, ABC News's president, David Westin, officially turned to Gibson, who had been the long-time popular co-
anchor of ABC's morning news show, Good Morning America. At 63, he was a recognizable face for the network's
viewers, his tenure on the morning program spanning nearly 20 of his 30 years at ABC. Among other things, he
had filled in during Jennings's treatment for lung cancer. After the network's effort to signal change with Vargas
and Woodruff, Gibson's move to the anchor chair spoke to continuity and familiarity, reassurance. That, after all
that had happened, seemed to be a signal the network wanted to send internally and publicly. Sometimes, the
tortoise comes out OK, Gibson told the San Francisco Chronicle shortly after the announcement, alluding to the
30 years it took him to ascend to the evening news anchor chair.
10
The most anticipated change, the most expensive salary, and the biggest story in network news of 2006 were at
CBS: the arrival of Katie Couric as the new anchor of the CBS Evening News. Before Couric's debut, the veteran
Schieffer, who let his corps of correspondents take the lead, had by early May come within 310,000 viewers of
second-place ABC in the key 25-to-54 age range.
11
While CBS's management was busy planning the future,
Schieffer's interim act had become the hot newscast in network TV, with noticeable momentum in the numbers
and a growing confidence on the air. Schieffer, in other words, became a hard act to follow.
After a $10 million promotional campaign and with a $15 million annual salary, Couric took over as anchor on
September 5, 2006. The Couric newscast had some new features, studied changes in look and manner, and a
slightly softer feel.
And it was fast out of the gate. t opened with 13.6 million viewers the largest audience for the network's
newscast in eight years. And much of that audience surge, according to Variety, came at the expense of NBC
News.
12
Through the fall, however, Couric's numbers quickly declined. For the full month of September, CBS Evening
news averaged 8.1 million viewers a night. n October, the average was 7.3 million, according to data from
Nielsen.
13
n November, the number rose to 7.8 million viewers (a rating of 5.5 and a 10 share). That meant that the
audience for the CBS Evening News in November was virtually unchanged from November the year before
(though share dropped by one point).
14
Yet Couric's audience by year end was still down by roughly 25% from when she began.
All this deserves a closer look. On the one hand, the press attention paid, the promotional money spent, and the
effort by CBS to rethink the evening news, all might have occasioned a reason for more people to watch and keep
watching the evening news. On the other side, history shows that no new anchor has ever been able to shake up
the rankings in the first year. Reinforcing that, the popularity and success of the local shows that precede the
evening news, the so-called lead-ins, are not a strong point for CBS and may not change much in the coming
year. According to the network television analyst Andrew Tyndall, Couric's arrival hasn't changed that formula.
That's something that cannot be changed in a few months.
15
CBS has, however, tried to change the nature of Couric's program, to counter-program in a sense. Particularly
early on, it offered a noticeably lighter mix of news than the other networks. n Couric's first week, according to
content analysis by Tyndall, ABC offered 46 minutes of hard news against 44 for NBC and just 19 minutes at
CBS. CBS News seemed to backing off this strategy by November, according to Tyndall's data.
16
Couric also is more the star of her program than are her competitors, doing more stories herself and taking up
more air time, though there is an overall trend toward a more robust anchor presence. According to data from
5'-
Tyndall, the amount of coverage devoted to non-reporter stories, such as commentary provided by the anchor,
surged from 1,999 minutes on all three networks in 2004 to 2,493 minutes in 2006, an increase of almost 25%.
17
Publicly, CBS management says it is focused on Couric's impact in the long term. People who want to judge this
as a success or failure after eight or nine weeks, think are missing the big picture, Sean McManus, CBS News
president, said in November. Our commitment to Katie is long-term. have said this from Day 1: am much more
concerned about the ratings in November of 2007, 2008, 2009 than am in 2006, he said.
18
Even in early March
2007, when CBS dumped Couric's executive producer, Rome Hartman, and hired Rick Kaplan, a producer with
previous stints at ABC News, CNN and MSNBC, the network remained optimistic: "Everyone is foursquare behind
Katie. don't have the slightest doubts about Katie's talent," Kaplan told the New York Times.
Privately, CBS executives have told the news staff something a little different. n one meeting, news people were
told that the network expected to lose a noticeable number of Schieffer viewers in the weeks after the new Couric
show began, but at the same time to gain new viewers who would migrate from morning news to evening to watch
Couric. Then, from that new base, in which about a quarter of the audience would be new, they would build.
The loss of loyal viewers has happened. The migration of new viewers has not.
ndeed, the program with the relatively stronger trend line is the one that is evoking the most traditional ethos and
the oldest anchor, ABC's program and Gibson. n a way, Gibson has taken over the Schieffer chair, the most
familiar, comforting, avuncular anchor, in the style of a Cronkite or Huntley-Brinkley.
-vening *e$s +ie$ershi". by *et$or(
1980-2006, November -November
5'%
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license
/BS
n last year's edition of the annual report, we noted the relative stability of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
n 2006, however, the audience for The NewsHour declined.
According to data provided by the NewsHour research department, roughly 2.4 million people watched each night
from October 2005 to September 2006 and the program averaged an approximate cumulative audience of 6.3
million people each week.
19
Both figures are down from previous years, when the program had around 3 million
viewers a night and 8 million viewers a week.
20
What could account for such a drop? According to John Fuller, senior director of research for PBS, two factors
have contributed to the decline. First, there is increased competition from proliferating cable networks. Second,
Nielsen has made changes to how its measures its viewing audience by switching from analog meters to digital
ones. That replacement, according to Fuller, has contributed to an understatement of the program's actual
audience figures.
21
t would, however, explain a marked drop in such a short time.
Other observers cite additional factors. The NewsHour has changed little in format over the years, some argue,
and could change more.
%orning *e$s
The year 2006 was also a turbulent one for network news morning shows. Two marquee anchors Couric and
Gibson departed for the evening news. And the total viewership for the morning news shows dropped for the
second consecutive year.
As of November 2006, total morning viewership stood at 13.6 million, down from 14.1 million the same month a
year earlier, according to data from Nielsen Media Research. That was a 3.5% drop and put total viewership at its
lowest point in this decade.
5''
n 2006, some industry analysts had wondered whether ABC's Good Morning America might surpass NBC's
Today Show after Couric, co-anchor of Today for 15 years and 10 consecutive years at the top, left for CBS
Evening News. Unlike the more stable evening newscasts, changes in morning news anchors have in the past
resulted in more immediate changes in audience figures. Viewers left en masse, for example, when Deborah
Norville replaced Jane Pauley on the Today Show in 1990. Then the numbers again reversed when Couric was
chosen as Norville's replacement one year later.
No such change happened in 2006. The Today Show lead held steady, remaining around 700,000 viewers ahead
of Good Morning America, according to data from Nielsen Media Research.
%orning *e$s +ie$ershi". All *et$or(s
November 1993 to November 2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license * Ratings taken for month of November.
%orning *e$s +ie$ershi". by *et$or(
November 1993 to November 2006
600
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license *
Ratings taken for month of November.
Design Your Own Chart
0able T+
Intro
By the Project for
Excellence in
Journalism
Cable TV news is
maturing. The medium
that changed journalism
at the end of the last
century is no longer a
new technology, with all
the growth,
experimentation,
controversy and sense
of zeitgeist that entails.
The audience for the
main three cable news
channels has not only
stopped growing, in
2006 it began to
decline. Even Fox
News, though it still
dominated the
competition, saw its
first drop, after six
years of meteoric
growth.
Financially, the sector
remains robust. And
2006 was a particularly
big year for Fox News.
t began to sign new
license fee agreements
with cable carriers,
successfully tripling its
rates, which put it
among the top five
channels in price. With
final numbers not yet
in, analysts predicted
that Fox News would
surpass CNN in
profitability. Analysts
expected revenues and profits to grow at
the other channels, too.
The inevitable question, one seen by other
media over the years, is whether cable now
has to manage profits as the audience base
declines. The other question is how much
cable will invest those rising profits in the
nternet and mobile technology, which are
not part of its legacy business of
programming television.
601
The answer will depend on the owners, of course There was no changing of the guard or major sale in 2006, but
there were more subtle changes MSNBC, with Microsoft no longer involved and NBC firmly in charge, carried out
a restructuring program, a management shakeup, and a new push toward politics and opinion At Fox News's
parent, News Corp , Rupert Murdoch settled a simmering dispute over control, and reflected on 10 years of cable
news success CNN saw Ted Turner, already gone from operational involvement, formally leave its parent
company's board
The impact on the newsroom of all this is harder to divine, in part because the networks like it that way Fox News
is building, and expenses generally are rising though not as much as profits but it is less clear how much of
the rise is going into reporters, producers and newsgathering muscle, and how much elsewhere The clearest
sense one has is that generally the cable news channels, including CNN Headline News, are moving more toward
personalities, often opinionated ones, to win audiences The most strident voices, such as Keith Olbermann and
Glenn Beck, are among the biggest successes in winning viewers, as is CNN's new crusader, Lou Dobbs How
much those individual shows affect a channel's overall audience is harder to gauge Their growth in 2006 was
substantial, particularly among 25-to-54-year-olds, but those gains were not enough to stanch the overall declines
The shifts toward even edgier opinion are also probably a response to another change Cable is beginning to lose
its claim as the primary destination for what was once its main appeal news on demand That is something the
nternet can now provide more efficiently As cable channels lose their monopoly over breaking news, they will
likely continue to push their identities toward something else That is also a reason that the cable channels are
putting even more effort into their Web sites And there, Fox News is trailing, not leading
The public appears to be becoming more skeptical of cable While trust remains high relative to other media
sectors, it generally is declining The audience is also fragmenting further by ideology, with MSNBC's audience the
most liberal
n short, with age, cable news is showing signs of beginning to suffer some of the same problems other media
have f Act of cable was the immediacy of CNN, and Act was the rise of Fox News, we may be embarking on
new plot twist
Au!ience
The cable news landscape is changing in ways that are more subtle than in previous years, and that hints at
differences not only in the purpose of cable news but also the channels people go to at different times in different
ways
For 2006, four trends stand out
L The average audience of the three main cable news channels was declining
L The drops at Fox News were the largest of all and marked the first time the cable news leader had begun
to bleed viewers
L But there were signs that the cumulative audience, or the number of different people in the course of a
month who view cable news, was still growing With average audience in decline, that would mean more
people visited cable news occasionally but didn't stay as long
L The growth in MSNBC and some individual programs on CNN Headline News seem to be associated
with the rise of even sharper opinions in prime time, and the declines at Fox News raise questions about
whether its longtime evening lineup is losing some of its appeal
L Relative to each other, the three cable news channels performed according to type Fox News remained
well ahead of the competition again While CNN managed to attract the largest share of unique viewers
and did better during big events, Fox News dominated in the number of eyeballs watching at any given
moment MSNBC, meanwhile, stayed in third place, though with new managers at the helm there was
some improvement in its performance, compared to previous years
602
But with subscribers reaching a plateau, viewership among the three main channels is declining. And with more
competition from the Web, PDA's, phones and more (see Digital) the trends of 2006 are only likely to continue.
The Three Ty"es of *e$s on 0able
The journalism on the cable news channels, the analyst Andrew Tyndall suggests, serves three distinct sets of
needs.
1
The first is News on Demand, updating the latest headlines available at any time during the 24-hour news cycle.
The second is Crisis Coverage, wall-to-wall, comprehensive, on-the-scene, constantly updated journalism on a
handful of essential stories that occur each year Katrina, 9/11, the invasion of raq, the Clinton impeachment,
or the undecided election.
The third is Prime-time Personality, News & Opinion Programming, the evening shows that include a mix of
nightly-newscast-style headlines, opinionated commentary, newsmaker interviews, analysis and true-crime
celebrity programming. These are the shows that Fox News and others have made into distinctive programs, not
tied to breaking news, that people arrange their schedule to watch, so-called appointment viewing.
A close look at which cable audience numbers are declining, and at which times dayparts, to use industry
jargon reveals the different patterns of how people are now beginning to use cable.
Common sense suggests that news on demand would be the kind of coverage most vulnerable to the rise of the
nternet, PDAs and other technologies for instant headlines. ndeed the declines in 2006 in the most basic
numbers average audience seem to confirm that.
But the audience data suggest something more. The audiences for prime-time news and opinion programming
dropped even more than daytime, a sign that it's not just news on demand that is losing its appeal. Some prime-
time opinion and personality programming on CNN and even more on Fox News may be losing sway.
The audience for crisis coverage long cable's biggest draw in raw numbers is harder to discern from 2006.
The numbers were not strong compared with other years, but it may be that the crises of 2006 simply did not
command the kind of interest of previous ones.
And the problems at Fox News, new this year, appear to be across the board, hinting that the news channel may
be facing its first significant signs of getting middle aged.
For all that, if a fourth channel, CNN Headline News, is thrown into the mix, the message becomes slightly more
nuanced. ts audience grew substantially in 2005, putting it within arm's reach of MSNBC. But in 2006, despite the
gains of one notable prime-time program, the news channel over all saw viewership decline.
0able Au!iences1 +ie$ershi" Declines
By the most basic measure, average audience each month, the viewership for the main three news channels
collectively in 2006 was down in both dayparts.
2
Cable news viewership can be measured in two different ways to arrive at an average monthly audience. The first
is median, which measures the most typical audience number each month. The industry tends to use a different
measure, mean, which creates a simple average from each day's total. We report both here, though we believe
mean tends to exaggerate the effect of big stories and thus is less accurate than median (see sidebar on
measuring the audience). By both measures, however, the numbers for the three main channels were not good.
Using median, the most typical audience, the prime-time audience for the three cable channels together suffered
an 8% decline in 2006.
603
n viewers, that means 2.5 million people were watching cable news during prime time in 2006, down from 2.7
million in 2005. A year earlier, 2004, prime-time audience was up 4% from 2003.
While we had noted previously that the pace of audience growth in cable had fallen sharply since 2003, this was
the first time in six years that there was an actual decline.
0able *e$s /ri'e Ti'e Au!ience
1998 - 2006, Channels Combined
Design Your Own Chart
Source: PEJ Analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
The trend in daytime viewership was similarly negative. Daytime median audience for all three channels fell 4% in
2006, to 1.5 million viewers, down from 1.6 million in 2005. A year earlier, daytime median audience had risen by
3%.
Calculating cable news viewership for 2006 based on the mean, as the cable channels do, paints an even bleaker
picture
0able *e$s Dayti'e Au!ience
1998 - 2006, Channels Combined
604
Source: PEJ Analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
Design Your Own Chart
The mean prime-
time audience for
all three channels
combined fell by
12%, to 2.50
million, down from
2.84 million the
year before. A year
earlier, prime
audience was
essentially flat,
growing less than
a percent.
n daytime, the mean
audience fell 11% in
2006, to 1.54 million,
down from 1.73 million
in 2005. A year earlier,
the mean daytime
audience had grown
7%.
Deeper probing into the
different ways of
calculating reveals still
more clues about why
the audience is down.
For instance, the
fact that the
declines in median
audience were
greater at night,
when the opinion-
and personality-
driven
programming are
on, reinforce the
idea that cable's
problems go
deeper than just
people gravitating
to other sources
for breaking news.
And the greater drop in
mean, the
measurement more
sensitive to audience
spikes, supports the
idea that the channels
enjoyed less of a
bounce in 2006 from
crisis coverage than in
years past.
0able *e$s /ri'e Ti'e Au!ience #ro$th
1998 - 2006, by Channel
605
Source: PEJ Analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
Design Your Own Chart
20021 0hannel by
0hannel
The losses in
viewership, however,
were not consistent
across the three main
channels. Fox News,
the only channel that
was gaining in years
past, began to lose
audience, and did so
at the steepest rate of
all. MSNBC, in turn,
began to gain.
The Fox e!s
Channel
Fox News remains the
cable leader, but for
the first time since its
launch, it saw losses in
viewership year-to-
year. What's more, the
drop was consistent
across the course of
the year and across
the dayparts, as well
as being sharper than
its competitors.
From January to
December 2006,
Fox News's
median prime-
time viewership
fell by 14%. That
was in sharp
contrast to the
year before,
when it was the
only cable news
channel to see
an increase
(9%). The story
was repeated in
daytime, when
its median
viewership
dropped 12% in
2006. A year
earlier it had
grown 5%.
f we look at the
mean, things don't
change for the
better. Fox News
saw almost equal declines in the two dayparts, 16% in
prime time and 15% in daytime.
ndeed, comparing the number of viewers in 2006 to 2005,
Fox News saw a decline in virtually every month, with the
greatest gap in the latter half of the year (incidentally, when
the big stories of 2006 took place).
)o& *e$s +ie$ers
2002 vs. 2003
%onth
0hange in 'ean
"ri'e4ti'e au!ience
0hange in 'ean
!ayti'e au!ience
5anuary
46.2% 47.6%
606
)ebruary
43.2% 46.8%
%arch
49.2% 487.2%
A"ril
4:.7% 46.:%
%ay
42.2% 2.2%
5une
420.9% 4;.9%
5uly
48;.;% 40.3%
August
42;.3% 3.:%
Se"te'be
r
428.2% 432.;%
<ctober
427.;% 482.6%
*ove'ber
482% 483.2%
Dece'ber
486.9% 486%
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license
f one accepts the notion that daytime is more a period
for news on demand, and the evening more a time for
personality and opinion programming, Fox News
appears to be suffering equally in both kinds of news.
That raises several possibilities. Fox News could be losing
viewers to other cable channels (some MSNBC and Headline
News programs are growing). Or some of its viewers could be
gravitating to other media. And in fact the declines in both
dayparts suggest that the problem may be some of both.
Some analysts, such as Andrew Tyndall, also raise the
question whether Fox News aligned itself too closely with
Bush Administration and the Republican Party. f so, it could
be suffering a backlash as the political winds change.
Or it may be in part an age problem; the Fox shows may
have become familiar. The lineup in prime time has not
changed appreciably in recent years. f that is the problem,
then just as CNN
began to do in the late
1990s, Fox News may
find that it has reached
a peak with its current
programming and
begin to re-imagine
some of its shows
(something CNN has
continued to struggle
with).
t also may be that
its competitors,
notably MSNBC and
Headline News,
have found ways to
finally begin to chip
away at some of
Fox News's
audience.
Whatever the causes,
if the declines
continue, they may be
compounded by
something else: both
CNN and MSNBC
have more popular
Web sites. That could
draw even more
breaking-news
audiences away (see
Digital).
3
For all this, of
course, one should
not lose sight of the
fact that Fox News
remains the
dominant channel,
both in terms of
overall audience
and individual
shows.
n 2006, more than
half the people
watching cable news
were watching Fox
News (as they have
since 2001).
The mean audience
for Fox News in prime
time was 1.4 million in
2006. That is more
than triple the
viewership of MSNBC
(378,000) and almost
double that of CNN
(739,000). More than half (55%) of all viewers watching
prime-time cable news in 2006 were tuned into Fox News.
During the day, 54% of the viewers watching the three main
cable news channels were tuned to Fox, again about double
CNN and more than triple MSNBC. Fox News averaged
824,000 viewers, against 472,000 for CNN and 244,000 for
MSNBC.
By program, Fox News had nine of the top 10 shows,
according to Nielsen rankings.
4
Only CNN's Larry King broke
that monopoly at No. 7. The O'Reilly Factor was again the
most-watched show on cable news, averaging 2 million
viewers a night.
60-
The To" 80 0able *e$s Sho$s
Dece'ber 2002
Sho$ 0hannel
Average Au!ience
=in 000s>
The <?eilly )actor
)o&
*e$s
209:
Hannity @ 0ol'es
)o&
*e$s
8322
<n the ecor! $A #reta +an Susteran
)o&
*e$s
8722
The )o& e"ort $A She"ar! S'ith
)o&
*e$s
8786
S"ecial e"ort $A Brit Hu'e
)o&
*e$s
8709
The <?eilly )actor =re"eat>
)o&
*e$s
8036
Barry Cing Bive
0** 8026
The Big Story $A 5ohn #ibson
)o&
*e$s
969
Stu!io B $A She"ar! S'ith
)o&
*e$s
920
Dour Worl! $A *eil 0avuto
)o&
*e$s
;;0
Source: Nielsen Media Research figures at MediaBistro.com
Note: average audience figures reflect all persons ages 2 and up (P2+)
At CNN, meanwhile, viewership declined as well in 2006. The median figures show a fall that was not as steep as
in 2005. t saw a loss of 2% in prime-time median viewership from January to December 2006, far better than the
11% loss in 2005.
CNN's daytime median viewership was actually up 6% from the year before, in contrast to the decline at Fox
News, and better than last year, when it lost 7% of its daytime viewers.
Looking at the numbers using mean, CNN executives have more cause for concern. The channel saw a drop of
12% in average prime-time viewership and about the same decline, 10%, in its average daytime audience.
Even with the drop in overall prime-time audience, some shows did see gains. Lou Dobbs Tonight, for instance,
grew 30% in the fourth quarter of 2006, while Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer's shows saw 15% and 18%
growth.
5
Those shows fared even better among viewers 25 to 54 years old, whom advertisers covet. Dobbs grew
57% in the 25-to-54 demographic in the fourth quarter of 2006 compared to same period in 2005. The Situation
Room with Wolf Blitzer was up 50% and Anderson Cooper 360 was up 24% in the same audience age range
(See News nvestment).
6
"#BC
f Fox News's declines were one major change in the cable news landscape, the other big shift came at MSNBC,
where viewership by any measure grew in both daytime and prime time in 2006.
The channel's prime-time median viewership figures rose 7% in 2006 compared with a loss of 2% the year
before.
t performed equally well during the day. Daytime median viewership grew 7% in 2006, building on the 3% rise in
daytime in 2005.
The metric the industry tends to use, mean, also showed growth at MSNBC. ts average prime-time audience was
up by 3%. n daytime, there was 1% growth.
What factors are working in the channel's favor? Could MSNBC be benefiting from a change of guard or changes
in programming, or was it simply a matter of having news to report?
60%
One potential explanation is greater synergy with NBC News many top-rung NBC anchors appeared on the
channel for election coverage, with favorable results. Top executives say they plan to continue such sharing of
talent. Synergy is also expected to increase with the physical shift of the MSNBC operations to NBC News's New
York headquarters from New Jersey (see News nvestment). MSNBC executives also believe that the changing
political climate in the country is helping the channel. Phil Griffin, an NBC News vice president, was quoted in
Variety as saying, The mood has changed and people are looking for a different kind of coverage.
One prime example of cashing in on the changing political climate is Keith Olbermann's show, Countdown with
Keith Olbermann (8 p.m. ET). Olbermann's is one MSNBC program that has bucked the general trend and
increased its key demographic audience in 2006. Compared with the same quarter a year earlier, Olbermann saw
a 67% rise among viewers 25 to 54 in the fourth quarter of 2006 (also see News nvestment) and a 60% rise in
the overall audience.
7
The steady audience numbers also could help MSNBC's position on the company ladder as NBC Universal
begins its re-structuring and digital initiative in 2007 (see Ownership). Yet all this needs to be kept in context.
MSNBC still lags well behind its two chief rivals and is even challenged by CNN's second network, Headline
News.
C $eadline e!s
n 2005, as we reported last year, CNN's sister channel, Headline News, began to emerge out of the cable news
shadows and to rival MSNBC in viewership.
n 2006, some of its momentum seems to have waned. Despite the launch of an edgy prime-time conservative talk
show that saw big gains, Headline News' overall prime-time and daytime viewership declined slightly. ts mean
prime-time audience was 302,000 in 2006, down 2% from the year before. That left it further behind MSNBC's
378,000.
n daytime, the channel averaged 218,000 viewers, a much steeper decline, 11% compared with 2005. Here, it is
still shy of MSNBC but closer, at 244,000.
The drop in daytime viewers, which was as bad as the drops at CNN or Fox News, may speak to the declining
news-on-demand appeal of cable. Those are the hours when Headline News follows it traditional wheel format of
headlines only every half hour.
0** Hea!line *e$s
Average Au!ience
Dear
/ri'e ti'e +ie$ers
702.000
Dayti'e +ie$ers
2002
28;.000
2003
706.000 2::.000
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license
n prime time, its decline was not as steep as its sister CNN (12%) or Fox News (16%). That is due at least in part
to the success of some of the channel's opinionated prime-time shows, particularly among young audiences.
At the front of that group is Glenn Beck, a former conservative talk radio personality, who anchors from 7 p.m. to 8
p.m. daily. His show grew 119% overall in audience and more than tripled (up 165%) among 25-to-54-year-olds in
the fourth quarter of 2006.
60'
Beck is up against some of cable news' bigger shows (Fox News's Fox Report with Shepard Smith, MSNBC's
Hardball with Chris Matthews and CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer). But their fourth quarter gains in
audience were no more than 20%.
8
Beck stands out, in part, because he may be among the most pugnacious
conservatives on cable TV, and ideological edge, particularly from the right, is a new identity for Headline News.
Beck's show is actually the second most popular Headline News show. n first place is the legal talk show Nancy
Grace (8 p.m. ET). Grace, a lawyer, began making audience inroads when she went on the air in 2005.
Her performance in 2006 was more complicated. The show's overall audience declined 16% in the fourth quarter
while its audience in the 25 to 54 demographic grew 8% (see News nvestment).
9
That might have something to do
with competition MSNBC's Keith Olbermann airs at the same time and he's been seeing huge gains among both
the 25-to-54-year-olds and over all audience. The drop also came, among other things, as Grace became
embroiled in controversy when one of her guests committed suicide after a Grace interview.
Headline News is also attracting viewers in the morning. ts morning show Robin & Company, hosted by Robin
Meade, has seen a ratings surge, especially among the younger demographic. According to CNN, the show's
ratings in October 2006 showed a 71% increase from the previous year among people 18 to 34. Further, Robin &
Company gets about 90% of all viewer response to Headline News's daytime shows, most of which is positive.
10
0u'ulative Au!ience
Another method cable networks use to measure their audience is Cume, short for cumulative audience. The
term refers to the number of different individual (unique) viewers who watch a channel over a fixed period.
Viewers are counted as part of a TV channel's Cume measurement if they tune in for six minutes or longer (they
are typically calculated over the course of a month). Like average audience, Cume is measured by Nielsen Media
Research.
CNN has historically led in terms of Cume and used the to leverage itself to advertisers arguing that advertisers
can reach a greater number of different consumers through its channel over time, even though its a%erage
audience lags significantly behind that of Fox News.
This year, CNN, which provides the Project with data on Cume, released figures only for the final month of the year.
According to those numbers, at least, CNN continues its lead.
But the trend lines, again, are strongest for MSNBC. t grew about 27% in December 2006, year-to-year. CNN's
sister channel, Headline News, was next, with a 24% growth in Cume audience.
0able *e$s 0u'ulative Au!ience
*u'ber of UniEue +ie$ers =in 000?s>
0hannel Dece'ber 2002 Dece'ber 2003
0**
68.696 39.9:9
)o& *e$s
28.398 37.0;7
%S*B0 37.6;3 :2.208
Hea!line *e$s 36.8;3 :2.020
Source: Nielsen Media Research, data provided by CNN
The Cume numbers also reveal something else. Cume was growing at least in December. ndeed, all four
channels had a higher cume in December 2006 than in 2005. This stands in stark contrast to the average
audience trends.
610
f the December numbers are typical, they suggest that more people tune in to the cable channels now than a year
ago, but are not staying as long. t may also say something about the nature of the major news events of 2006 in
contrast with years past the so-called crisis coverage component of cable journalism. That question deserves a
closer look.
0risis 0overage1 The Big Stories of 2002
What is happening with crisis coverage on cable?
As noted above, the steeper declines seen in mean audience (as distinct from median) suggest that the cable
channels benefited less from crisis coverage in 2006 than in years past.
Over the last decade, the cable channels saw their growth stimulated by major crises. Viewers would come for the
big events often in huge numbers and many of them would begin to watch the channels more afterwards.
Are cable channels now also losing sway in this area? Or was 2006 somehow a slower news year than in years
past?
One way to examine those questions is to take the big months of the year, when coverage spiked because of
major news events, and compare these spikes to the ones registered during previous crises.
n 2006, the big stories were the summertime crisis in the Middle East in July and August and the mid-term
elections in November. (The Middle East crisis overlapped with another major event, the foiled terrorist plot to
bomb American planes in London.)
The Middle East crisis and the terrorist threats led to a surge in cable news viewers in August. CNN saw its
August 2006 prime-time audience up 19% and its daytime audience up nearly 40% compared with August 2005.
The month also saw it generate the largest number of total viewers in the year. MSNBC's prime-time audience
grew just 4% (although daytime was up 36%) compared with August 2005. Fox News actually saw a 29% dip in
prime-time viewership, while daytime viewers grew 5%.
November, the month of the mid-term elections, saw no such spikes. There was little growth in viewership in the
three channels over November the year before growing only 10% over October 2006 in prime time, even
though the election occurred in the second week of the month and, given the dramatic results, carried on with
coverage for weeks after that. n daytime, the channels actually lost about 1% of their viewers.
Compare that to the spikes registered in earlier years. n August 1998, when video of President Bill Clinton's
deposition before a grand jury was released, cable news registered a 71% spike in both daytime and prime-time
viewers from the previous month. The hanging-chad elections in November 2000 that ultimately brought George
W. Bush to power had everyone riveted to the cable news channels and registered 91% growth in prime-time
viewers and 156% growth in daytime compared to the month before.
0able *e$s Au!ience !uring Big -vents
1998 - 2006, Channels Combined, Prime-time Viewers
611
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license Note: Figures reflect average viewers in respective months
What to make of the smaller spikes in 2006?
Of course it is impossible to conclusively compare different news events in different years. Some analysts, such
as Andrew Tyndall and the former CNN correspondent Charles Bierbauer, believe that the crises of 2006 were
simply not as compelling, as news events, as those of other recent years. That is certainly possible, perhaps even
likely. A mid-term election and a Mid-East crisis may not be news on the same magnitude for Americans as
Katrina, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein or September 11.
Nonetheless, given the other declines in 2006 and the growing range of options Americans have for news, it is
also possible that the spikes in cable viewership from major events may just become smaller. t's a question that
deserves monitoring.
The De'ogra"hics of the 0able *e$s Au!ience
Who is watching Cable News? Over all, the typical cable news viewer is likely to be male and middle-aged (mean
age of 48 years) with a college education.
There are some variations by channel. The average Fox News viewer is about 48 years old as well and earns a
higher income, while the average CNN viewer is a year younger, and more likely to have a lower income. The
MSNBC viewer is likely to be younger still, but with a better income than CNN. We provide a more complete
profile of the cable news audience, and what the demographics might signify, in the Public Attitudes sub-chapter.
%easuring the Au!ience
Audience trends in television can be measured using either one of two calculations - median or mean (simple
average).
The cable channels prefer to calculate their year-to-year ratings by converting the Nielsen ratings data into annual
averages using the mean. By that accounting, thanks to an enormous but brief spike during big events, the cable
news audience can be seen as surging. Yet such averaging tends to create a misimpression the idea that the
typical cable audience is very high.
612
n reality, cable ratings are among the most volatile in journalism, spiking and falling wildly with news events. n
most months, there is something closer to a normal base-level cable audience only occasionally punctuated by
spikes during major news events. n mathematical terms, that would argue for looking at the median (defined as
the middle value) rather than the average.
The statistical methodologist Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri explains the choice of median rather
than mean this way: The median is a better indicator of central tendency when there are extremely high or
extremely low observations in the distribution. Those greatly influence the mean, but have little effect on the
median. n other words, the median is the closest on the average to all of the scores in the distribution. Very high
levels of cable viewing during a big event pull the mean too far away from realistic viewing scores. For that
reason, the median is the better indicator of typical viewing levels.
For instance, in 2003, when the war in raq began, mean viewership numbers showed the cable news business
booming up 34% for daytime and 32% for prime time from the year before. But using the median, or the middle
value of the 12 months of that year, the picture that emerged was that cable viewership was basically stable. t
showed no growth during the day and a gain of just 3% in prime time. How can that be? The reason is that cable
news didn't retain the audience that it gained during those first weeks of the war. Median was a better reflection
of a year in which viewership spiked only for 2 months and then fell back down again.
n 2006, the median numbers actually spell better news for cable channels. Taking the average viewership for
2006 and comparing it to 2005 shows a significant decline in the cable news audience down 11% for daytime
and 12% for prime time. But using the median, we see was a decline of just 4% during the day and 8% in prime
time.
Our research team, as well as the staff at the Pew Research Center, believes the median is the fairest way to try to
understand the core audience for cable, given the volatility of ratings spikes. The other measurement, mean or
simple average, tends to be disproportionately inflated by the spikes and, consequently, also exaggerates any
declines in cable audiences when those spikes don't happen.
Median offers a truer sense of the core or base audience, those people who are watching day in and day out,
without ignoring the cumulative effect of the size of the audience that gathers momentarily if extraordinary things
happen.
The %i!4Ter' -lections on 0able
The year 2006 had its share of big stories to reinforce the distinctions between the three main cable news
channels. The biggest was the November mid-term elections.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News was the choice for most viewers on Election Day. However, more
people aged 25 to 54 that advertiser-coveted demographic tuned into CNN.
Between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. on November 7, 2006, Fox News scored an average of three million viewers. CNN
was close behind with 2.97 million, followed by MSNBC with 1.95 million. According to the trade publication
Broadcasting & Cable, CNN overtook Fox News in the prime demographics. t attracted 1.33 million of the 25-to-54
group, more than Fox News's 1.25 million.
11
For MSNBC, the numbers actually represent a big improvement over previous major events. ndeed, the success
it saw during its election coverage seems to have translated into a new strategy. Channel executives like general
manager Dan Abrams told TV reporters afterwards they believed that political coverage might just be the niche
MSNBC had been looking for (see News nvestment).
All three channels had invested heavily in their election night coverage and promoted it vigorously. Each had its
marquee anchors up front and brought in a number of high-profile guests and analysts to entice viewers to stay
tuned in (see also our Election Night 2006 report).
613
CNN's election night special, America Votes 2006, was anchored by Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper
and Paula Zahn its full retinue of prime-time stars from the Time Warner Center in New York. n that sense,
the network seemingly used election night as an opportunity to promote its prime-time lineup. The choice of
Dobbs, whose program has become more opinion-oriented, as an anchor was sufficiently controversial to prompt
an Associated Press story reporting on critics questioning the choice.
CNN also used its new and elaborate digital news wall to display real-time information and results. CNN
Pipeline, its nternet broadband channel, was used to stream candidate speeches. n another example of non-
traditional coverage, the channel also invited leading political bloggers under one roof. Both initiatives, however,
experienced some technical difficulties and didn't create the impression CNN hoped for.
Another special investment in 2006 was CNN Election Express Yourself, a trailer tour that traveled across the
country. t involved online activities, video portals and online interaction to get people's opinions on the elections.
t also let users access the CNN Pipeline sections and navigate through the special online election section on its
Web site, America Votes 2006.
MSNBC, which competes on such nights during certain hours against its own sister channel, NBC, tried to create
a niche for itself during the election season, touting its intense political coverage in the weeks leading up to the
voting. On Election Day, MSNBC's special, Decision 2006 was anchored by its cable stars, Chris Matthews and
Keith Olbermann. The talk-show anchors Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough hosted a panel of analysts to
discuss the results. t also used NBC correspondents to add weight to their analysis. The anchors Brian Williams,
Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell all did rounds on the cable channel.
MSNBC also went around the country for the mid-term campaign. The popular anchor Chris Matthews took his
Hardball show to different colleges as part of the channel's coverage. t invited big-name guests to each of the
colleges, which served as the background and audience for each show.
Fox News seemed less crowded on the sets. The veteran anchor Brit Hume led the election special, You Decide
2006, with Shepard Smith on the air before and after. Fox News's chief analyst was Michael Barone of U.S.
News & World Report, a widely acknowledged expert on Congressional races and co-author of the respected
Almanac of American Politics.
)ootnotes
1. Andrew Tyndall of ADT research, who consults with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is not the only one
to mention these ideas; many media analysts agree on these needs that cable news satisfies.
2. Daytime is defined by cable news as 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Prime time is defined as 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
3. n 2006, the Fox News digital network had a unique online audience of 6 million visitors, far behind CNN's 24
million and MSNBC's 26 million. See Online Ownership.
4. Nielsen Media Research, Weekday Competitive Program Ranking for December 2006, Obtained from Media
Bistro (www.mediabistro.com).
5. Nielsen Media Research figures for Q4 2006 versus Q4 2005 obtained from Media Bistro
(www.mediabistro.com)
6. Figures from CNN Press Relations, e-mail correspondence, January 18, 2007
614
-. MSNBC was the Only Cable News Network to Gain Viewers in 2006, MSNBC Press Release, January 3, 2007
%. Nielsen Ratings obtained from Media Bistro.com (www.mediabistro.com) indicate an audience growth of 119%
for Glenn Beck. At the same time slot, the Situation Room (CNN) grew 18%, Shepard Smith's Fox Report (Fox
News) dropped 20% and viewership of MSNBC's Hardball fell 1%.
'. Nielsen Media Research figures for Q4 2006 versus Q4 2005 obtained from Media Bistro
(www.mediabistro.com).
10. Kevin Forest Moreau, Switching Channels, The Sunday Paper, Georgia, November 2, 2006
11.John M. Higgins, CNN Wins Election Demos; Fox Leads in Total Viewers, Broadcasting & Cable, November
8, 2006
-cono'ics
Though 2006 was a difficult year for cable news in terms of audience, it was a better one financially The reason is
that the economics of cable news are not entirely tied to annual audience trends They are connected to multi-year
contracts cable channels have with cable systems that distribute their content After Fox News renewed its
contracts in 2006 and began to reap the benefits of a decade of growth, the economics of cable news are poised
for some important changes
Five major economic trends stand out for 2006
L Fox News was expected to overtake CNN as the profit leader in cable for the first time, with only more
growth projected for the future
L The reason, in part, is that Fox News began to sign new contracts that tripled the license fees it received
from cable providers The new contracts, replacing the 10-year deals it signed when it launched in 1996,
put the cable news channel into the highest levels of subscription fees for the first time
L Meanwhile, the other cable channels also expected to see profits jump
L For all Fox News's momentum, CNN, whose financial figures are combined with Headline News, still had
the largest revenues
L MSNBC, meanwhile, was projected to generate meaningful profits for the first time
While the numbers are impressive particularly Fox News's financial milestones they do not come without
questions First, Fox News was expected to overtake CNN in profits in 2005 as well, but fell short, so the accuracy
of projections remains a question
1
The second is more long-term With all channels losing audience in 2006, has
the cable industry as a whole beyond just news begun a downward curve?
The number of cable households that are subscribers has barely increased in years, inching just 1% or so every
year in the last five
2
With no new audience, advertisers aren't paying what they used to Cable networks are no
longer able to get the significantly higher rates they are accustomed to, and ended up with only a 2% gain in the
2006 advertising upfront period
3
n addition, the slowdown in advertising revenue and growth means each
network or channel spends more on self-promotion to maintain its position
4
So far, the industry has stayed ahead of those downturns and convinced analysts it can weather the storm
According to projections for 2005-2010, basic cable (beyond just the news channels) will see a 78% growth in
revenues despite the economies of scale and leveling-off of subscribers
5
The cable news channels have been
faring equally well in projections
/rofits
615
By the bottom-line measure, profits, cable news is doing well indeed, and analysts see more of the same in the
immediate future.
Kagan Research, the media research firm, projected that the four cable news channels would earn $699 million in
pre-tax profits in 2006. That would represent a jump of 32% from 2005, when they generated $529 million.
Fox News was projected to become the most profitable channel, overtaking CNN for the first time. Kagan
expected Fox News's operating profits to grow more than 30%, to $326 million, from $244 million in 2005.
CNN, whose figures include Headline News, was projected to see a growth of almost 14%, to $310 million from
$272 million in 2005.
While MSNBC isn't anywhere near the level of the other two channels, its estimates continue to be optimistic.
Kagan expected profits at MSNBC to rise to $64 million in 2006 a leap of almost 400% from the $13 million it
made the previous year, and a sign that the news channel will, at long last, become a contributor of some value to
NBC television's bottom line. One caveat is that MSNBC has fallen short of projections before.
0able *e$s /rofitability
1997 - 2006, by Channel
616
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter Kagan nc.
Design Your Own Chart
One significant trend
that emerges from
those numbers is that
Fox News has been
steadily narrowing the
gap in profits with CNN
every year, and at a
much faster rate than
analysts projected. n
2004, Fox News's
profits had been
projected to be $97
million behind CNN's,
and in 2005 some $56
million behind. Actual
figures show the gap
was $58 million in 2004
and $28 million in
2005.
Thus, even if the gains
in 2006 are more
modest than projected,
Fox News has
achieved in ten years
what it took CNN 25
years to accomplish.
t should be
emphasized, again,
that financial data for
2006 are estimated or
projected, since actual
annual figures for a
calendar year come out
six months later.
Comparing actual 2005
figures against
projections (in last
year's Annual Report)
shows how far off the
mark projections can
be.
Kagan Research's
projections for profits
are a case in point. Fox
News made about $4
million less than
projected ($244 million
rather than $248
million), a slight
variation. MSNBC, in
contrast, made only
half of what analysts
expected it to $13
million, not the
projected $27 million.
CNN's actual earnings fell short by about $30 million
of what it was projected to make a profit of $272
million, not the projected $304 million.
evenues
One reason for Fox News's strength is that in
tandem with profits, revenues are also rising rapidly.
According to the annual profiles released by Kagan
in July 2006, Fox News's revenues were projected
to grow 23.4%, nearly identical to the 23% of 2005.
That is nearly triple the projected revenue growth at
CNN. n dollars that would come to $754 million, up
from $610 million in 2005.
CNN and Headline News, on the other hand,
continue to bring in the highest revenues in
cable news, but the growth in recent years has
slowed to single digits.
6
Kagan's projections for
CNN include both CNN and CNN Headline
News because they are sold as a package to
advertisers and distributors. They do not
include the revenues CNN earns from its other
operations, such as CNN Radio, CNN
nternational or NewsSource, its subscription
service that provides newsfeeds to local
stations.
7
The two channels were projected to bring in
$985 million in total revenue in 2006, a 7.6%
increase over the previous year's $915 million
(a 9% increase over the year before that).
61-
MSNBC, meanwhile, continued to lag well behind the other two channels in financial performance. Kagan
Research projected MSNBC would take in $269 million in revenues in 2006, a 7% jump over the previous year. (n
2005, incidentally, its revenues fell short of projections: $251 million against a projection of $261 million).
One can also get a sense of the accuracy of projections for revenues from the actual results of 2005.
0able *e$s evenues
2003 vs. 2002. in F 'illions
2003
/roGecte!
2003 actual
="roGection vs. actual>
2002 "roGecte!
0** ;6;.2 983.2 =H76> 9;3.7
)o& *e$s 28:.; 280.; =4:> 63:
%S*B0 228.7 238.: =49.9> 22;.;
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of JupiterKagan nc.
Seen against projections, CNN fared better than analysts expected. Fox News, on the other hand, falling short by
about $4 million, and MSNBC's were about $10 million lower than projected.
evenue Strea's
To understand all this, it is important to recognize how cable economics work. Unlike broadcast television, which
depends entirely on advertising, cable news has two revenue sources of basically equal weight subscriber
fees, paid through the cable systems, and ad revenues. That is why cable companies can make substantial
revenue and profit with much smaller audiences than broadcasters.
A breakdown of the two tells the story of where cable news' economics are headed.
&icense Fee or #u'scri'er Re%enues
The less obvious revenue stream in cable, license fees, is the money paid by the cable systems to carry the
channel. These are long-term deals negotiated in advance on a per-subscriber basis irrespective of how many
subscribers actually end up watching the channel. f a cable company enlarges its audience, it can renegotiate
those license fees upward when contracts come up for renewal.
The year 2006 marked the 10th anniversary of Fox News and the beginning of its process of renewing license-fee
contracts. When the channel launched in 1996, many of the 10-year contracts it signed gave the channel 25 cents
for each subscriber, roughly half what CNN makes.
All through 2005 and 2006, Fox News executives were quoted as saying they would like a revised rate of $1 a
subscriber an unheard-of increase in fees in the industry. While analysts believed that such a hike was
unrealistic, Fox News executives used the channel's Nielsen performance in arguing for it.
Their confidence has borne fruit. Fox News managed to triple its current fees in the first of its renewal deals, with
Cablevision, currently the sixth-largest cable operator in the U.S. After much speculation in trade magazines,
8
the
two sides agreed on a rate upwards of 75 cents per subscriber in October 2006, according to Broadcasting &
Cable.
9
Their new contracts are five-year deals( nitial media reports said that Fox News was negotiating for cable
systems to carry both the news channel and its proposed new business channel (see News nvestment). There
was also talk of retransmission fees for the Fox broadcast network. Eventually, however, trade magazines
reported that the final deals did not include carrying the business channel or the retransmission fees.
10
61%
The new rate makes Fox News one of the top five most expensive cable networks in terms of license-fees. At the
top is ESPN, which charges $2.96 per subscriber per month, followed by TNT at 89 cents, Disney Channel at 79
cents, Fox News and then USA at 60 cents. CNN currently gets 44 cents.
11
The Merrill Lynch analyst Jessica Reif Cohen, who had expected Fox News to get 50 cents a subscriber,
estimated that the new rates could give Fox News $2.4 billion in affiliate revenue between 2007 and 2010. This
represented a jump of 23%, or $450 million, more than the projections that were made before the deal.
12
Kagan Research, whose 2007 projections were released before the deal and don't take into account the
renegotiations, estimated Fox News would earn 30 cents per subscriber in 2007 and earn subscriber revenues of
$330 million. But based on the new rates, there is bound to be a huge difference.
13
The October deal with Cablevision was followed by similar deals with DirecTV and National Cable Television
Cooperative (NCTC). t also set the stage for future renewals, which promise to be just as fiercely negotiated. Fox
News now has to deal with operators such as Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and Comcast. Peter
Chernin, President and COO of News Corp., was quoted in September 2006 as saying he expected tough,
tough, tough negotiations with cable operators.
0able *e$s %onthly evenues /er Subscriber
1997 - 2006, by Channel
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter Kagan nc.
ndeed, the Fox News deal, to some degree, highlights the love-hate relationship between cable operators and
cable channels. Such negotiations over license fees and contracts have become increasingly combative.
Operators argue that while news channels are ubiquitous in cable, they are actually watched by relatively few of the
subscribers and that with their audiences now declining, Fox News doesn't warrant the kind of license fees it is
asking for.
Another consequence of the deals is likely to be a re-enactment of the CNN vs. Fox News rivalry on the economic
front. CNN, losing audience to Fox News the past six years, could face some stiff resistance from cable operators
when their current deals expire, especially because the operators are resigning themselves to the huge increases
they will have to pay Fox News.
61'
0able *e$s evenues @ -&"enses
2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter Kagan nc.
Kagan estimates CNN will take in $515 million in subscriber revenues in 2007, at its current rate of 45 cents for
each subscriber. That would be an increase of $31 million over its projected 2006 revenues of $484 million.
MSNBC suffers from both the lowest subscriber rate and the fewest subscribers. At a rate of 15 cents apiece, it is
projected to earn $162 million in 2007, up from the $152 million it was expected to earn in 2006.
Ad%ertising Re%enues
The second revenue stream for cable news, of course, is advertising. Advertising revenues in cable are based on
whether the channel appeals to a higher-income target audience.
The appeal of cable news has always been that it attracts well-educated, relatively affluent viewers, an audience
with purchasing power that advertisers want. This niche positioning largely determines advertising rates. And
while their rates can't be as high as those of the broadcast networks because of smaller audience than broadcast
networks, cable news channels compete well on rates with general-interest cable channels such as sports or
entertainment, which boast much larger audiences.
So how did the channels fare in 2006? Fox News was expected to reach another fiscal milestone. f estimates
prove accurate, it will have overtaken CNN for the first time in advertising revenue.
According to projections by Kagan Research, Fox News was expected to take in $454 million in 2006 from
advertising. That would top CNN's projected $424 million (and far exceed MSNBC's $114 million).
t would also represent a 31% growth over 2005, more than twice that of CNN (13%) and more than four times that
of MSNBC (7%).
*et A! evenue of 0able 0hannels
2000 4 2002. in F 'illions
620
2000 2008 2002 2007
799.2
20;.2
200:
786.
:
2003
est.
77:.9
2003
actual
2002
est.
0** :82.; ::3.9 739.; 763.9 :27.3
)o& *e$s 38.2 39.9 809.; 7:3.7 :37.2
%S*B0 87;.; 883.6 9;.: 802.: 88:.:
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of JupiterKagan nc.
Note: Net Ad Revenue refers to revenue generated after discounting the commission that goes to ad agencies.
There is however, at least one big caveat. Projections for 2005 indicated a similar leap for Fox News that never
materialized. n that year, Fox News was expected to take in $336 million, scraping past CNN's expected $335
million. But actual results showed that CNN did better than expected and bought in $376 million in 2005. Even
though Fox News took in $345 million, it remained almost $31 million shy of CNN.
What's more, other analysts think Kagan's projections are overly optimistic for Fox News. According to a report by
Jessica Reif Cohen of Merrill Lynch in September 2006, Fox News's ad revenue for 2006 was expected to be
$421 million and to increase at an average of just 4% a year in the next four years.
14
How is it that CNN can charge ad rates close to those of Fox News with a much smaller audience? The answer, as
we have noted in earlier reports, is that Madison Avenue apparently continues to covet CNN's audience type.
CNN's historic lead in advertising revenue can be attributed to both familiarity and performance. t commands a
substantial cumulative audience and remains the channel of choice for breaking news events, making it appealing
for advertisers who want a guaranteed audience.
How long that might continue is an open question.
)ootnotes
1. While various sources offer projections and estimates of economic data on the cable television industry, the
differences among them aren't particularly large. As a consequence, we generally cite one source here for the
sake of clarity, one consistent yardstick rather than many variations on the same theme. On those occasions
where estimates vary widely, we occasionally offer an alternative. To arrive at an accurate trend over time, we
have relied on data from Kagan Research in this report. Kagan is one of the most experienced media and
communications analysis and research firms in the U.S., widely cited in the general press and in trade
publications. Kagan provides us economic profiles breaking out the cable news channels from the overall
company profiles.
2. See the 2006 Cable Audience section
3. Upfront is an advertising term for an early buying season (the upfront season) when advertisers purchase ad
spots on TV shows for the coming broadcast year. They buy the spots in bulk to get lower rates and to ensure that
their ads will be seen by enough viewers. Rates for such spots are calculated based on a show's average
audience and ratings.
4. John Higgins, Why the Cable Buzz is Gone, Broadcasting & Cable, September 11, 2006
5. Kagan Research estimates in July 2006 indicated that basic cable TV revenue in 2010 would be $53.2 billion,
up from $29.9 billion in 2005. Robert Marich, Profit Margins at Basic Cable TV Nets still climbing Despite Growing
Pains, Kagan nsights Newsletter, Jupiter Research, July 11, 2006
6. By way of comparison, CNN's revenues in 2005 were $200 million more than those of Fox News and $700
million more than MSNBC's.
621
-. Other CNN operations include CNN en Espanol, CNN en Espanol Radio, CNN.com, CNN Money.com, CNN
Studentnews.com, CNN Airport Network, CNN to go, and CNN Mobile. (Source: Time Warner Web site).
%. Fox News put out a legal notice in September 2006 warning Cablevision customers they might lose the channel
in October because of contract complications. Rupert Murdoch made things personal when he was quoted in
trade magazines warning off Cablevision's head, Chuck Dolan.
'. John M. Higgins, Fox News Gets Big Hike in Cablevision Renewal, Broadcasting & Cable, October 16, 2006
10. Michael Learmonth & John Dempsey, Fox's Triple Play, Variety, October 16, 2006
11.Kagan Research; Also Michael Learmonth & John Dempsey, Fox's Triple Play, Variety, October 16, 2006
12. David Goetzl, Merrill Lynch: Fox, Cablevision Deal Means 25% Rev Jump for Net, MediaPost, October
18, 2006
13. The new subscriber fees, on the cable systems that have renewed their contracts with Fox News, are
effective starting the month they were reached (either October or December, 2006). Thus, their impact will not
really be visible until the 2007 fiscal year.
14. The report by Cohen predicts that Fox News's ad revenue would reach about $502 million in 2010,
an average increase of 4%. David Goetzl, Merrill Lynch: Fox, Cablevision Deal Means 25% Rev Jump for
Net, MediaPost, October 18, 2006.
<$nershi"
The basic ownership picture of Cable changed little in 2006. News Corp., the company managed and controlled
financially by Rupert Murdoch, owns Fox News. General Electric, the corporate conglomerate that owns NBC and
Vivendi Universal studios, owns MSNBC. CNN is a part of the Time Warner-AOL empire.
Below the surface, however, subtle changes tell a dynamic story. When it comes to management, MSNBC is the
channel gearing up for the most change in 2007. After some top-level changes in 2006, it is likely to see shake-
ups throughout the organization in 2007 as it moves facilities to New York near NBC News.
At Fox News, Rupert Murdoch celebrated the channel's 10th anniversary and strengthened his hold on the parent
company, News Corp. At CNN, Ted Turner did the opposite removing himself from the board of Time Warner
and breaking his ties with the news channel he created.
%S*B0
Cable's perennial third-placer finisher in 2006 saw three significant changes. With the departure of its co-owner,
Microsoft, NBC and its parent General Electric (GE) gained more freedom to make changes. GE then announced
a series of cuts and reshuffling throughout NBC and MSNBC, including closing down the news channel's New
Jersey headquarters and moving operations to NBC's Rockefeller Center offices in Manhattan. And MSNBC put
new personnel in charge of the news channel, which seems to have hit upon a new style and brand politics and
opinion.
All of that began at the end of 2005 when NBC Television took over sole charge of the channel after 10 years of
joint ownership with Microsoft. t was described as a move to revitalize the channel and align it more closely to
NBC News, according to NBC's president, Steve Capus.
622
That began to take shape in October 2006, when NBC Universal, the parent division of NBC television (which
includes both MSNBC and NBC News) announced what it labeled NBC 2.0 to assure future growth and to
exploit the opportunities of the changing media landscape.
The initiative coincided with the release of GE's third-quarter figures, where profits were lower than expected (6%
increase) partly because of NBC Universal's 10% drop in profits. That provided the context for what turned out to
be cuts mostly at NBC Universal. According to the company, the reductions would be shouldered by NBC U's key
profit center: news at its national broadcast and cable networks, and local owned-and-operated TV stations.
1
According to various media reports, the company planned to trim the news division budget through attrition,
buyouts, layoffs and the elimination of duplicate newsgathering processes. The official press statement said
management would be cutting about 700 jobs (5% of the total workforce) by 2007. But Capus said the cable
channel would not be targeted for heavy cuts.
One change that was clear was closer integration through physical proximity. As part of the 2.0 initiative, NBC
announced it would move MSNBC operations 600 personnel out of its Secaucus, N.J., headquarters and
shift it to New York (with NBC News) and Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (with CNBC). NBC said its aim was to create one
digital hub for news, and pool reporters from all the various news businesses.
2
t was also, however, one way to
save money.
The changes followed a reshuffle in top management earlier in the year. n May 2006, Rick Kaplan, the veteran
from ABC and CNN, stepped down as president and general manager of MSNBC less than three years after
taking over the struggling channel. Media critics attributed Kaplan's exit to his lack of programming success,
especially with the shows he created (see News nvestment). He was, however, credited with building morale
within the channel after an era of program shuffling and newsroom turmoil under his predecessor, Erik Sorenson,
and with creating a better relationship with NBC News.
Kaplan was succeeded by Phil Griffin, who was appointed President of MSNBC in June 2006. Griffin is a
successful newsroom veteran at both NBC and MSNBC, where he was most recently senior vice president of
prime-time programming. He also continues to oversee NBC's morning Today Show, which he has led since
1995.
Griffin in turn named Dan Abrams, the channel's legal-affairs reporter and anchor, as general manager, though
Abrams remains a legal correspondent and will contribute to both NBC and MSNBC. His promotion was a
surprise not just because he had no management experience, but because cable networks rarely put news
anchors in their executive ranks. For one thing, TV anchors historically have more job security than general
managers and vice presidents. Media speculation was that the appointment was a result of his familiarity with
both the channel and with Steve Capus and Phil Griffin. All three have been involved with MSNBC from the early
years. Abrams has been with MSNBC since 1997 and has been the anchor of The Abrams Report since 2001.
Capus was executive producer of an MSNBC prime-time newscast in 1999 and in charge of daytime
programming when the channel launched in 1996.
According to MSNBC, Abrams's immediate goals were to build on the success of the channel's two most popular
shows, Keith Olbermann's Countdown and Chris Matthews's Hardball (see more in Audience).
By fall, it was clear that meant trying to brand MSNBC around politics, and with a lineup that was now heavily
influenced by opinion and talk in prime time (Tucker Carlson, Matthews, Olbermann, and Joe Scarborough are all
political talk). With a pivotal mid-term election, the strategy seemed to work, especially in prime time (see
Audience). The press began to write promisingly of the idea. As Variety put it, politics might help bring cultural
relevance to a channel that has long struggled to find its niche.
3
n part, the move suggests that Abrams and Griffin recognize the growing difficulty of building a news channel
around breaking headlines, or what we have called news on demand. Creating a brand around a subject area, the
way ESPN does around sports, or CNBC does around business, is a logical alternative. CNN may also have
helped create the opportunity. ts changes, such as cancelling its nside Politics program and to a lesser extent its
cancellation of Crossfire, moved it more explicitly away from politics. CNN certainly devotes time to the subject,
623
but its franchise is less defined. Fox News's viewership in this area, in turn, is decidedly more conservative,
potentially leaving another niche.
As 2007 began, the strategy still appeared to be working. n January, MSNBC drew in 525,000 viewers in prime
time, an impressive increase of nearly 53% over its numbers for the same month last year (344,000). That was far
better than the gains made by CNN (13%) or Fox News (9%).
*e$s 0or". an! the )o& *e$s 0hannel
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corp., had reason to toast Fox News and its chairman, Roger Ailes, during the
10th-anniversary celebrations of the channel in October, 2006. The Fox News channel continued to be a News
Corp. star performer, not just in its category (cable networks) but among all the U.S. operations of the media
conglomerate (see Audience and Economics).
4
Fox News turned 10 on October 7, 2006. Proving forecasters and skeptics wrong, the network overtook CNN
the biggest name in cable news at the time in audience within six years of its launch.
When Murdoch created the news network in 1996, he marketed it as an antidote to what he termed the left-wing
news media. n an interview with the Financial Times in October 2006, Murdoch reflected on the channel's
beginnings and said Fox News had changed the political equation in country, because it has given room to both
sides, whereas only one side had it before.
5
Murdoch hired Ailes, former president of CNBC and a former political
strategist for the Republicans, to head the network. Ailes hasn't just changed the style of TV news presentation,
he has challenged existing TV news agendas.
Undoubtedly the force behind the channel, he brought with him not just a talent for marketing and political hard-
sell, but knowledge of television and a no-nonsense style of leadership. He combined these with the belief, more
hinted at than explicit in Fox News marketing, that American viewers would empathize with the idea that
mainstream media were tilted to the left. His slogans, Fair and balanced, and We Report, You Decide, implied
that those were not qualities available in other media.
Ailes also did something else. He succeeded (where CNN rarely did) in creating distinct programs that people
would tune in to so-called appointment programming in TV language. Bill O'Reilly's program was distinct from
Hannity and Colmes, which in turn was different from Brit Hume's, and that in turn from Neil Cavuto's. There were
differences in style and tone, and different anchors played, in a sense, different characters.
There was also a new look with graphics, sound, editing, pacing and more. The combination of a polished look,
populist language and opinion-laden journalism has hit the target with many viewers.
Even a former president of MSNBC, Erik Sorenson, admits, Fox News convinced millions. that Fox's reporting
was indeed fair and balanced, when compared with CNN and broadcast news.
The channel took off in 2001, after the September 11 terrorist attacks and during the war in Afghanistan, when it
took on an outspoken pro-American posture. ts position which implied that the other news channels weren't
pro-American created a strong and loyal viewer base.
The channel's rise has also been tied to news-watching's becoming partisan. According to the latest Pew survey
on news consumption, Republicans are increasingly watching Fox News, while Democrats stick to CNN.
6
Despite being the biggest cable news channel in the U.S. and part of one the largest media conglomerates in the
world, News Corp., Fox News has succeeded by playing off the impression that it is a lonely young upstart
challenging the rest of the colossal, liberally biased media.
When asked directly, the network vigorously denies any charges of political or ideological bias. t has had to
constantly defend its credibility as a straight news source. A recent example occurred in an October 2006
interview on Fox News Sunday with Bill Clinton when he flared up and accused the host, Chris Wallace, of
doing a conservative hit job on me.
624
Fox News executives say their channel succeeds and gets attacked only because it offers a different
perspective. Roger Ailes was quoted in USA Today as saying that the liberals hate (Fox News) for coming on the
scene and. making the people look at both sides of issues.
7
Shepard Smith, one of Fox News' marquee news
anchors, argues that critics need to recognize that the channel offers two kinds of shows. On one hand are the
talk shows that reflect their hosts' views, he says, but all the others, including the two news reports he anchors,
are straight news reporting. Ailes concurred, arguing that Fox News's critics mash (opinion shows and the
journalism) together and act as if Sean Hannity is doing the evening news, which is just nonsense.
8
This report is not an attempt to settle the issue of Fox News's fairness and balance, but to assess its position in
the marketplace at its 10-year mark. Whatever its critics might argue, there is no denying that Fox News has
made newsrooms re-think their business, both in format and content. The success of Fox News's talk shows has
led to opinion journalism's becoming almost staple fare in the TV news business; notable competitors with Fox
being Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Lou Dobbs on CNN. Olbermann's recent ratings climb has coincided,
indeed, with his on-air crusade against the Fox News talk-show host Bill O'Reilly.
The success of Fox News has also sparked off debates on whether objective news is even relevant in a time
when ordinary Americans give vent to their opinions through the nternet and blogs.
But while his American news channel in 2006 gave him few worries, Murdoch had a close shave with his stake in
the parent News Corp. itself. For much of the year, Murdoch was locked in a battle with Liberty Media Group's
chairman, John Malone, over the controlling interest in News Corp. The battle was finally settled in December
when News Corp. reached an agreement with Liberty Media to ensure Murdoch's control of his company.
9
Liberty and News Corp. were equally stubborn negotiators, and, as analysts had predicted, they compromised.
The final deal, which will come into effect later in 2007, stipulates that Liberty will acquire News Corp.'s 39% stake
in DirecTV, three regional Fox sports networks and $550 million in cash.
10
n return, Malone will retire his 19%
voting stake in News Corp. by selling it back to the company. Malone's stake has roughly the same value as the
DirecTV stake and other assets he gets from Murdoch, making the deal an even swap.
The final deal also raises the Murdoch family share in News Corp. to about 40%, making it the biggest voting
stake in the company.
11
Murdoch and his two sons currently own about 30% of News Corp., giving them managing
control of the company, and it is widely reported that Murdoch hopes to keep control within the family.
12
So it was no
surprise he reacted strongly when that control was threatened.
The fact that News Corp.'s share price was up and earnings rose 19% in the fourth quarter of 2006 would
undoubtedly have bolstered Murdoch's claim that he knew best how to run the company.
13
n addition, he had the
public support of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who owns a 5.7% stake in News Corp. The measure
helped protect the Murdoch family's control of News Corp. until a deal was reached, and also helped them avoid a
lengthy battle in court, where the dispute would have ended up if the deal was not agreed on in time.
Another, smaller footnote regarding Murdoch's activities in the U.S. was the setback his publishing company,
Harper Collins, experienced in December 2006. t attempted to publish and market a book entitled f Did t by the
ex-football player O. J. Simpson, acquitted in 1995 of killing his wife. The plan was harshly criticized and the book
had to be withdrawn.
f Did t was heavily marketed before is scheduled launch, including promotion of an interview to be aired on
Fox TV stations with Simpson himself on November 27 and November 29, 2006 two of the final three nights of
the November sweeps, when ratings are watched closely to set local advertising rates. The interview and the
book faced immediate outrage, both among the public and in the media (including local Fox affiliate stations and
Fox News's Bill O'Reilly). Murdoch had to personally step up to say the company had made a mistake and issue an
apology.
Ti'e Warner 0o'"any @ 0**
The year 2006 saw CNN's founder and Time Warner's most prominent personality, Ted Turner, break his final ties
with the company.
625
n February 2006, Turner announced he would not be standing for re-election to Time Warner's board of directors
at the annual meeting; he officially said goodbye in May 2006. He remains Time Warner's largest individual
shareholder, with 33 million shares, but has been cutting back on his holdings.
Turner's decision to step away comes 11 years after he sold his cable company, Turner Broadcasting Networks,
to Time Warner, and 26 years after he helped launch CNN.
14
His effective departure from operational involvement,
however, had come earlier, with the merger in 2000 of Time Warner and AOL. Now, his departure from even the
board of Time Warner marks the formal end to a career at the Turner companies in which he stands as a pioneer
in the latter half of the 20 th century in televised American news, entertainment and sports.
Tuner was the first to see the potential of cable as a viable alternative to the broadcast networks and to make the
potential a reality both technically and economically. Leo Hindrey, former head of TC cable, lauded him as a
visionary. Without CNN, the cable industry would never have evolved as it did. The rest of us were putting in
wires. Ted gave us something to watch.
He is credited with pioneering the use of satellites to distribute ad-supported cable channels nationwide, which had
never been tried before. Turner was also responsible for introducing the dual revenue streams for cable:
advertising revenues and, particular to cable, subscriber revenues from cable distributors (see Economics).
And while he may not have grasped the potential of the nternet, he did introduce television viewers to an on-
demand media world when he launched the 24-hour news channel CNN, effectively weaning viewers away from
the notion of fixed schedules for news.
Ted Turner had long played a prominent role in Time Warner's decisions, but in recent years had complained that
he was being sidelined. n a shakeup in 2000, just before Time Warner merged with AOL, the CEO at the time,
Gerald Levin, had relieved Turner of most of his responsibilities.
He became increasingly vocal in his disagreements with Time Warner, and was even quoted as saying his
decision to merge with the conglomerate was the biggest mistake of my life. His most recent decision follows his
resignation as vice-chairman of Time Warner in 2003, a post he had held since the 1996 merger.
15
)ootnotes
1. Anne Becker, NBC U: More with Less, Broadcasting & Cable, October 23, 2006; Online at:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6383679.html
2. NBC News, the network's local owned & operated news stations, MSNBC TV, CNBC, Telemundo and
Telemundo affiliates.
3. Michael Learmonth, MSNBC Seizes Election Mandate: Cable News Channel Rides Political Wave, Variety,
November 19, 2006. See also Howard Kurtz, For MSNBC, Time to Get Political, Washington Post, November
20, 2006.
4. News Corp. doesn't report financial results for the Fox News Channel, but says it is one of the biggest parts of
the fast-growing cable-networks division. The division reported operating income of $864 million for the year
ended June 30. Julia Angwin, After Riding High With Fox News, Murdoch Aide Has Harder Slog, Wall Street
Journal, October 3 2006.
5. nterview Transcript: Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, Financial Times, October 6, 2006; online at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5b77af92-548c-11db-901f-0000779e2340.html
6. Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,
July 30, 2006; online at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageD=1067
-. Peter Johnson, 10 Years Later, Fox News Turns up the Cable Volume, USA Today, October 1, 2006
626
8. Matea Gold, Up Next, Wrangling Respect, Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2006
9. News, Liberty May Trade Stakes, Los Angeles Times, December 7, 2006
10.Richard Siklos, Murdoch and Malone Find a Way to Make Up, New York Times, December 7, 2006
11.Julia Angwin, News Corp. is Poised to Regain Liberty's Stake, Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2006
12.Rupert Murdoch has two sons. James Murdoch, the younger son, is currently CEO of BSB, their British
broadcasting group. Lachlan Murdoch, the older one, was made deputy CEO of News Corp. in 2000 in what was
seen as a move to groom him to take over his father's role. n 2006, however, he suddenly quit his executive role
in the company and moved to Australia. Murdoch's succession is now open to speculation.
13.Seth Sutel, News Corp. 4th-quarter earnings rise 19% to $852 million on radio sale, cable gains, AP, August
8, 2006
14.Time Warner was created in 1990 by the merger of Time nc. and Warner Communications. That company
acquired Ted Turner's Turner Broadcasting System in 1996. t merged with AOL in 2000, and was known as Time
Warner-AOL until 2003.
15.Turner now concentrates on his philanthropic works, such as the UN Foundation and Nuclear Threat nitiative.
*e$s Invest'ent
As media platforms proliferate and evolve, cable news networks are faced with growing pressures to stay
relevant, and have to go beyond just producing TV journalism Not only must they improve their existing content,
but like other media they must increasingly compete with other kinds of journalism, online, on mobile devices, with
text, audio and more Cable's great historic advantage, immediacy, is no longer the province of cable alone
Against that background, these developments stood out in 2006
L Fox News appears to be continuing to increase investment in its news operation at a higher rate than its
competitors
L CNN, along with its sister channel, CNN Headline News, after scaling back earlier in the decade, is
increasing its investment, too, but more slowly
1
L MSNBC, which has been cutting back on its operations for the previous two years, was projected to see
expenses grow in 2006, but that was before the announcement by GE of its new NBC 2 0 program, which
is tallying up major cutbacks throughout the news division
L t is less clear how much of each channel's investment is going into reporters and producers
newsgathering boots on the ground and how much is going elsewhere
L The trend toward opinion journalism, one of the elements of Fox News's success, appears to be
strengthening among its rivals CNN, CNN Headline News and MSNBC all invested more heavily in
promoting opinionated personalities
nvesting Bac( an! /re"aring for the )uture
There are two ways of analyzing a station's financial investment in the news product The first is to look at all the
money a company spends to operate a station That amount, total expenses, includes salaries and capital
expenditures on technology and machinery, as well as the specific costs attributed to different programs
The second way of looking at expenses is to identify the part attributable to specific programs, termed
programming expenses That includes the costs of either buying material from others or producing it in-house This
second category deserves a closer look
62-
Programming Expenses
Projections for 2006 indicate that the three main news channels will have spent up to two-thirds of their overall
expenses on news programming. At MSNBC, programming was expected to make up 74% of all expenses. Fox
News's share was 63%, while CNN was expected to invest about 54% of its expenses in programming. The
numbers represent a slight growth for MSNBC and Fox News from the previous year and a decline for CNN.
2
While CNN devotes the smallest percent of its total expenses to the newsroom, it is still at the top when it comes to
sheer dollars. ts projected newsroom spending for 2006 was $346 million, up from $330 million in 2005 (a 5.7%
increase). One reason the number is higher is it reflects both CNN and CNN Headline News.
Fox News was expected to spend roughly $75 million less than CNN in 2006 ($271 million in programming
expenses), but that represented almost a 23% rise from $221 million in 2005, the biggest percentage growth
among all the three competitors.
MSNBC, meanwhile, was projected to spend by far the least, $153 million in 2006, a 10% rise from the previous
year ($139 million).
Those projections, however, were released by Kagan Research before the changes in ownership and
restructuring at NBC Television (see Ownership). Actual figures might not reflect the optimistic projections. f
media reports are to be believed, the shakeups in NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC newsgathering resources are
bound to mean some cutbacks in programming costs.
0able *e$s /rogra''ing -&"enses
1997 - 2006, by Channel
Year
rjCMM
[J Fox
Q MSNBC
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter-Kagan nc. CNN figures include CNN Headline News
Total Expenses
When other expenses are added in (such as salaries and capital expenditures on equipment and facilities), Fox
News is expected to increase expenses nearly 17% (compared with the 23% increase in revenues). That is about
the same growth in expenses the channel saw in 2005 (16%). n dollar terms, Fox News is expected to spend
$428 million in 2006, up from $367 million in 2005. CNN's total expenses were projected to increase almost 5%,
to $675 million, up from $643 million the year before, on revenue growth of 8%. That means CNN will spend about
62%
69% of its revenues to cover expenses, as opposed to 70% in 2005. The share it puts back is more than Fox
News but much less than MSNBC.
MSNBC, meanwhile, seemed to be cutting costs in 2006. f the projections are correct, MSNBC would have cut
expenses by 14% during the year on revenue growth of 7%. MSNBC has been cutting costs for the last three
years, according to the data, but these cutbacks are significantly higher. The channel had cutbacks of 3% in 2005
and 5% in 2004. Given its lower base, expenses eat up a considerably higher percentage of MSNBC's revenue.
n 2006, MSNBC was expected to have spent a total of $205 million, about three-fourths (76%) of its total
revenue.
3
0able *e$s -&"enses
2003 vs. 2002. in F 'illions
2003
/roGecte!
2003 actual
="roGection vs. actual>
2002 "roGecte!
0** 36:.7 2:7 =H2;.6> 263.2
)o& *e$s 722.2 722.2 =0> :2;
%S*B0 27:.2 27;.; =H:.2> 203.2
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of JupiterKagan nc.
How do those expenses play out on the ground in terms of newsroom sizes and operations? Are those elements
growing, or is the money going into promotion, salaries for hosts, sets, and show costs? That is harder to know,
and increasingly the news channels are not saying.
CNN is clearly the largest operation, with 11 domestic bureaus and 26 international ones. Those numbers reflect
no change from a year earlier. But finding much more than that, for the moment, is difficult. The network did not
provide its staffing numbers, but for the latest year for which we have data, 2004, it had roughly 4,000 employees
(see our 2005 Annual Report).
Fox News appears to be building. The channel ended 2006 with 10 bureaus in the U.S. and 6 abroad, according to
the Los Angeles Times reporter Matea Gold.
4
The number overseas doubled from the three it had at the end of
2005, in London, Paris and Jerusalem. Channel executives were also reported to be planning to build their
international coverage by partnering with other international news organizations or broadening their pool of
freelancers.
5
But getting a full scope of Fox's investment is also difficult. Like CNN, the channel did not offer
staffing numbers, but for the latest year for which we have estimates, 2004, it had 1,250 employees in its news
operation.
At MSNBC, the trend lines are probably not promising. With its parent company cutting back, and the network still
struggling to build audience, it had begun cutting costs at least two years earlier. MSNBC relies on NBC News'
bureaus domestically and worldwide. Those include 15 international bureaus and seven bureaus in the U.S. As of
December 2006, it had a staff of 600 dedicated to the cable operation, according to its PR department.
6
But the
news channel can also turn to NBC personnel for content.
0hanges on the Air an! Behin! the Scenes
The declines in viewership, slowdown in growth of profits and growing competition from new media all represent
challenges for cable news. One way the industry appears to be responding is by changing programming line-ups.
All three channels fiddled with their programs and on-air faces in 2006. The impact of these changes, though,
remains to be seen.
C
62'
n the search for a successful programming strategy to counter Fox News, CNN made numerous changes in
2006.
Those began first thing in the morning, a time slot where CNN lags behind both Fox News and the broadcast
network morning shows. CNN's American Morning became an hour shorter starting in 2007 (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) just
a year after it had been expanded to four hours. That makes it the same length as Fox News's more popular Fox
& Friends. Trade magazines speculated that CNN may also hope to attract morning network TV viewers in the
wake of all the changes in the broadcast morning shows with the departure of Charles Gibson and Katie Couric to
evening news (see Network TV Audience).
n daytime between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. CNN merged its two programs, CNN Live Today and Live From, into
one long news block called CNN Newsroom. CNN's longtime anchor, Daryn Kagan, left the channel in September
2006. She was replaced by a new hire, Don Lemon, who began by hosting the afternoon leg of the show along
with Kagan's former co-anchor Kyra Phillips, who remains. Lemon had been a local TV anchor in Chicago.
n prime time, CNN continued to promote its two tent poles, the star anchor Anderson Cooper's Anderson Cooper
360, which starts at 10 p.m., and Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room, which runs from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Another
prominent personality getting increasing attention is CNN's Lou Dobbs, who hosts his one hour show at 6 p.m. as
a break in Blitzer's show. The rest of prime time is taken up by Paula Zahn Now (8 p.m.) and Larry King Live (9
p.m.)
Dobbs saw some notable ratings success in 2006 (see Audience). The surge came after Dobbs recast himself
from a traditional financial journalist into an economic populist crusading on such issues as exportation of jobs
and the decline of the middle class. The transformation has made Dobbs more an advocacy and opinion journalist
in the mold of Fox News's Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. And just as their shows have been the
only ones seeing growth when cable news over all is slowing down, Dobbs' numbers are also on the rise.
Dobbs, who has been with CNN since its inception (save for an interlude from 1999 to 2001) was an utterly
conventional financial reporter who did features on different companies and interviews with corporate chieftains.
His new show airs at 6 p.m. ET and begins CNN's evening programming. The hour-long show is spilt in two: The
first half hour contains domestic and international news, while the second is dominated by brands or special
segments on his pet issues. These segments, with names like Broken Borders or Exporting America, are
heavily promoted across CNN.
7
C $eadline e!s
One of the biggest questions facing the CNN news channels CNN U.S. and CNN Headline News is how they
can compete with the more opinion-filled prime-time competition and still hold on to their reputation as objective
news sources.
For CNN, one strategy has been to make Headline News a more personality-driven talk and opinion TV channel
in prime time. Originally designed as a 24 hour wheel format, where headlines were simply repeated every half
hour, the channel continued its efforts to create a more distinct identity for itself in 2006.
Ken Jautz, who is responsible for Headline News, told the New York Times that the channel was analogous to the
op-ed page, with the main CNN providing the rest of the more objective news pages.
That, at least in prime time, represents a remarkable transformation for Headline News. The name itself in the
evening is a holdover from another time, if not something of a misnomer. t is also, as noted in the Audience
section, a sign of how headlines, or news on demand, is no longer a franchise cable commands alone.
The shift from news to views saw Headline News investing in some changes to its lineup and promoting a host
of strong personalities. Chief among the channel's star names are the prime-time talk-show hosts Glenn Beck and
Nancy Grace, both controversial.
8
630
Beck, a conservative talk-radio host, joined Headline News in May 2006 with his own prime-time show (Glenn
Beck at 7 p.m. ET). Asserting that he is no journalist, Beck tends to takes radical points of view and claims to say
what others are feeling but afraid to say.
9
Equally brash, if not more so, is the other Headline News star, Nancy Grace. The former lawyer, who began the
Nancy Grace legal talk-show in 2005, is known for her personal and emotional involvement in the cases she airs.
n 2006, Grace's aggressiveness became even more controversial when one of her guests, Melinda Duckett,
committed suicide after Grace treated her as a potential suspect in the Ducketts' son's disappearance. n
November 2006, the woman's family sued Grace.
10
But prime time is not the only slot on which CNN Headline News executives are concentrating. Noticing the
attention that the morning anchor Robin Meade was getting, they re-branded the program around her calling it
Robin & Company in October 2005, making it more conversational and less straight news. One year later, the
strategy seemed to have paid off with higher ratings and positive audience feedback.
As for its lineup changes, it eliminated its 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. newscast, citing a need to bolster their editorial
services elsewhere. To fill the gap, the earlier newscasts were increased by an hour each. n prime time, it
extended its star weeknight shows to the weekends. Those include Prime News with Erica Hill, Showbiz Tonight
and Nancy Grace.
"#BC
The fate of MSNBC was the subject of much speculation throughout 2006. n October, NBC Television announced
a major new initiative that implied that the channel would have to shift its current headquarters and combine its
newsgathering resources with that of the sister concerns NBC News and CNBC. The changes to its staff weren't
clear yet, but the cuts at the NBC News division were an ominous sign for the newsgathering resources at
MSNBC, which had already been cutting expenses for three years, (See Ownership and Network TV.)
Even before the NBC restructuring was announced in October 2006, MSNBC was making a significant number of
programming changes.
n July 2006, soon after the resignation of its president and GM, Rick Kaplan, it cancelled the legal show he had
approved, Rita Cosby: Live and Direct (only a few months after giving it a prime-time slot). MSNBC also saw the
end of two other shows that Kaplan had approved, Connected Coast to Coast and Weekends with Maury and
Connie. The latter was hosted by the NBC talk-show veteran Maury Povich and his wife, the former news anchor
Connie Chung. Kaplan's only remaining creation is the Tucker Carlson Show, which was re-branded Tucker and re-
scheduled to an late afternoon slot, but it has been a ratings disappointment. According to Nielsen data, Carlson's
show saw a 19% drop in viewers in November 2006 compared to November 2005.
The star personalities on MSNBC instead have turned out to be Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.
Reminiscent of Fox News' opinion-laden prime time fare, Olbermann's opinionated, increasingly anti-
administration 8 p.m. talk show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, has become a surprise ratings success in
recent months (see Audience). ndeed, in February 2007, MSNBC renewed his contract for four more years.
11
Before he became a news talker, Olbermann was a sports broadcaster, notably with ESPN. His sharp
commentary and writing as a co-anchor of SportsCenter became a trademark for the channel, and he continues to
appear on ESPN Radio.
12
He joined MSNBC in 1997 to host The Big Show, which became The White House in
Crisis during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998, but quit a year later. He rejoined the channel in March 2003
with the current show. Launched to cover the raq War, it was originally called Countdown: raq, but is now a mix
of the top headlines (counted down to reach a big story last, though in reality the top stories of the day come
first) accompanied by his comments and a number of quick recurring segments such as Oddball or Top 3
Newsmakers.
631
The show has been gaining viewers since August 2003, even though it competes at that hour with Fox News's
The O'Reilly Factor, the most-watched cable news show. ndeed, one of the factors for Olbermann's success has
been his on-air feud with O'Reilly. Openly critical of the Fox News host, Olbermann has frequently named him the
worst person in the world (one the recurring segments of his show) that has consequently made Olbermann a
hero to liberals and anathema to conservatives.
13
More notably, it has led to both media coverage and higher
ratings.
Olbermann is one of a growing number of cable news personalities bringing their opinions to news channels and
succeeding. After years of ratings troubles, MSNBC couldn't be happier. According to Dan Abrams, Keith
Olbermann is the right person at the right time, and doing it the right way."
14
Fox e!s
One core of Fox News' success, and one CNN and MSNBC are beginning to emulate, is that it has created
distinct programs, usually built around opinionated personalities. And furthermore, it has managed to do that at
different points in the day.
That success begins in the morning. From 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. ET, the channel airs Fox & Friends, the highest-rated
cable morning show. According to some trade magazines, the program is even poised to take on the network
broadcast shows.
15
Built as a talk show with three hosts, the show's casual and conversational approach is
peppered with hard-news updates, personal opinion and ideological edge. The show saw no changes in format,
though one of its anchors, E.D. Hill, was replaced by Gretchen Carlson in September 2006.
n February 2007, the channel re-branded its 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. block American Newsroom, hosted by Bill Hemmer
and Megyn Kelly. During the earlier programming changes in September 2006, Hemmer was made the anchor of
a one-hour show at noon that used the Fox News Web site as a hook. Fox Online was a recap of the day's top
news and picked up stories that are most popular on the Web site for discussion. The time slot is now taken up by
its predecessor, Fox News Live, which was extended by an hour; it now runs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and is
anchored by E. D. Hill.
September was also when the anchor Martha MacCallum was promoted to be a host of her own show, The Live
Desk with Martha MacCallum, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. The channel named Jane Skinner anchor of the weekday
show Fox News Live, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., to replace MacCallum.
Another prominent change was the elimination of its Dayside program in September. The show's anchors, Mike
Jerrick and Juliet Huddy, headed to a network morning program for Fox's broadcast stations (see Local TV
Audience).
16
The Fox Business Channel
The biggest question about Fox News in 2007 is its business channel, though its existence is now more a
question of when, not if.
n February 2007, Murdoch announced that the Fox Business Channel would launch by the fourth quarter of the
year.
Getting enough subscribers for the new channel to make financial sense was one of the biggest obstacles to its
launch. t managed to reach its goal of 30 million subscribers by the end of 2006, after securing carriage or
becoming a part of the channel line-up on the Comcast, Time Warner and Charter cable systems and on the
DirecTV satellite network.
17
The first big sign of News Corp.'s investment in the new venture was its inclusion in Fox News's license-fee
contract renegotiations in October 2006 (see Economics). While there was no official statement, trade reports
early in the year said that Fox would ask for about 10 cents per subscriber per month for the business channel.
18
Eventually, however, Fox executives clarified that the business channel was not a factor in determining the rates for
Fox News.
632
News Corp. has already invested in some staff for the business channel. According to Television Week, Neil
Cavuto will oversee content and business news coverage.
19
Day-to-day operations will be handled by Kevin
Magee, a former Fox radio syndication chief who is also in charge of the new syndicated morning TV show on the
broadcast network. He was named executive vice president of the business channel in October 2006.
Joining them will be former CNBC correspondent Alexis Glick, who was made director of business news in
September 2006. She is also expected to anchor on-air.
*e$ Dor( . *e$ Dor(
One other change in cable newsrooms was a greater push toward New York City, the traditional home of national
television news. All three networks created a higher presence there in 2006. CNN beefed up its studio, Fox News
bought marketing space on Times Square and MSNBC moved in with NBC News.
CNN, headquartered in Georgia, invested in a large studio at the Time Warner Center (its New York
headquarters). The new studio is technologically advanced, and its centerpiece is a giant video wall displaying
both video and graphics that first showed up during the broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360 in October 2006. t
was promoted as a big-screen showcase for the latest video and informational graphics pouring into CNN from
around the nation, the world and the Web, and was used heavily during the election coverage in November 2006.
All MSNBC operations are expected to be out of New Jersey sometime in 2007 as it begins sharing space with
NBC News at its Rockefeller Center headquarters in Manhattan.
Most of Fox News's programs are aired from its New York headquarters (also the site for a massive 10th
anniversary party in October 2006). The Fox Television group built on its presence in the city by signing a 10-year
deal to air its programming on Times Square. The 1,400-square-foot television screen is an iconic marketing
space, and the Fox group intends to use it to air Fox News content morning and evening, along with local news
from the New York Fox station and sports programming. ts new business channel is also expected to be based in
Manhattan.
)ootnotes
1. Kagan figures for CNN presented in this section include economic data for CNN/U.S. and CNN Headline News
only since they have been sold as a package to U.S. advertisers. The two CNN channels are separated in
Audience analysis because Nielsen Media Research, which aggregates data on audience figures, provides
figures for each one individually. They do not include expenses on other CNN operations or subsidiaries, such as
CNN nternational, CNN en Espanol, CNN Radio, CNN en Espanol Radio, CNN NewsSource, CNN.com, CNN
Money.com, CNN Studentnews.com, CNN Airport Network, CNN to go, and CNN Mobile. (Source: Time Warner
Web site)
2. n 2005, all three channels spent approximately 60% of their total expenses on programming. Fox News
invested the most at 60.4%, followed by MSNBC at 59.2% and CNN at 57.4 %.
3. With much higher revenues, both Fox News and CNN manage to spend a lesser share (and therefore,
generate higher profits) than MSNBC. CNN is expected to have spent about 68% of its revenues to cover
expenses in 2006, against 70% in 2005. That share is much less than MSNBC (76%), but more than that of Fox
News. For 2006, Fox News was expected to devote just about half (56%) of its revenue to cover expenses,
compared to 60% in 2005.
4. Matea Gold, Up Next, Wrangling Respect, Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2006. The bureaus are based in
London, Paris, Jerusalem, Hong Kong, Moscow and Rome. Personal Correspondence with Matea Gold,
December 9, 2006.
5. bid.
633
6. MSNBC bureaus and staff size obtained through e-mail correspondence with their PR department on
December 12, 2006. Staff numbers for CNN and Fox News were not available at the time of publication.
-. See Kurt Andersen, The Lou Dobbs Factor, New York Magazine, December 4, 2006.
%. Noam Cohen, With Brash Hosts, Headline News finds More Viewers at Prime Time, New York Times,
December 4, 2006.
'. bid.
10. Critics and the family argued that Grace's questioning was out of line and could be responsible for the
suicide. The channel's continued airing of the episode after the incident was also criticized as in bad taste. Grace
herself was unapologetic and CNN offered no comment but to say it supports Grace.
11.He will continue to host the show and even take it to NBC with two Countdown prime-time specials every year.
n addition, Olbermann will contribute to NBC Nightly News with occasional essays as well. Olbermann Re-ups
with MSNBC, MSNBC Press Release, February 15, 2007
12. He also appears on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN radio in the afternoons. Bill Carter, MSNBC's
Star Carves Anti-Fox Niche, New York Times, July 11, 2006
13. Mackenzie Carpenter, Anchor Olbermann Counts on Commentary to Boost MSNBC's Ratings,
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 12, 2006
14. bid.
15. Michele Greppi, Seeking Gains from Change: CNN Program angles for samplers, TV Week, June 12,
2006
16. Off camera, the Fox News veteran Kim Hume (wife of anchor Brit Hume) left her post as the channel's
vice president and Washington D.C. bureau chief after the mid-term elections in November 2006. Bruce Becker,
working as an editor and producer with Fox News since 1996, took over on an interim basis.
1-. Comcast had agreed to air the business channel for its digital subscribers, giving it a viewership of 12
million in November 2006. That will be in addition to the subscribers it can reach on DirecTV (15.5 million) and
Cablevision, both of which have agreed to carry the channel. Richard Siklos, Comcast is Said to Agree to Carry
Fox' Planned Business News Channel, New York Times, November 7, 2006
1%. Mike Reynolds, Fox News Bucks Odds, MultiChannel News, April 17, 2006
1'. Michele Greppi, Fox Business Channel in Fourth Quarter, Television Week, February 8, 2007
Digital
While it is among the newer technologies, cable may be as challenged by the digital revolution as any medium.
The main reason is that the nternet is a threat to cable's great appeal: immediacy and news on demand.
Viewing habits have already changed. Consumers now have the choice to get many of their TV news shows
without needing to own a TV through the nternet, downloaded as a podcast or read on their cell phones, all
trends likely to accelerate as the reach of higher-speed broadband connections spreads.
n 2006, all three cable news channels made their television content available on the third screen the cell
phone. MSNBC has made a specialized version of its site available to subscribers of most cell-phone companies,
apart from sending headlines on the phones. CNN sends an audio feed of CNN Radio as well as headlines and
634
CNN videos from the site, while Fox News began a new service in January 2007 that allows mobile phone users to
listen to live audio of the channel's on-air broadcasts (see more details in respective sections below).
While it is a niche market right now, the potential for growth of mobile phone content, both text and audio-visual, is
huge. t is helped by the fact that the number of high-speed cell phone networks that can support video is on the
rise. Mobile TV may be in its infancy, but it's growing fast. t will be interesting to see how news friendly it will be.
0able T+ *e$s Web sites
Develo"'ents in 2002
%S*B0 0** )o& *e$s
Website www.msnbc.com www.cnn.com www.foxnews.com
Into!uce
! in 2002
Video podcasts
of NBC
Newscasts
User-generated
" Reports"
Fox Flash
0ell
"hone
content
"MSNBC.com
Mobile" - breaking
news headlines,
special version of
the Web site (no
multi-media yet)
"CNNtoGo"
-breaking news
headlines,
videos and
audio feed of
CNN Radio
"#FOXN" - breaking
news headlines,
videos and audio
feed of Fox News
channel
Source: Respective Web sites, December 2006
The extension to new platforms also brings with it new competition. The cable news networks need to outperform
not just traditional rivals, but online news media leaders. Those include news aggregators such as Yahoo, AOL
and Google. Those Web portals, which are already in heavy use and familiar to consumers, pose a serious
challenge to any traditional media outlet, be it television, print or audio. They aggregate coverage from a wide
variety of news outlets, aiming to give users a wider breadth of information in a kind of one-stop-shopping Web
site. Both these activities are a function of time and convenience, and news outlets are worried that consumers
might not think it worth their while to make the extra effort to come to their individual sites.
What is also unclear is what synergy or relationship there will be among different platforms. Will posting a story on
the Web also drive viewers to the news organization's TV product? Will cable networks become, some day,
nternet companies, the prospect many think is facing newspapers?
While they have all developed their mobile content along similar lines, the three cable news channels have taken
very different approaches to their online identities.
%S*B0 =$$$.'snbc.'sn.co'>
MSNBC.com comes across as an amalgam. As the online home of NBC, MSNBC and the weekly magazine
Newsweek, the site strives to give all three their due while at the same time creating its own identity. Those
efforts, however chaotic they may seem, have succeeded in building an audience.
Unlike its performance on cable TV, MSNBC's Web site (which launched simultaneously with the cable channel in
1996 as a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC) has long been one of the top three news sites on the
nternet, with a monthly average of 26 million unique visitors.
What is in the brand that draws users to the site?
No one trait jumps out. In our stu!y of 38 different news websites, MSNBC doesn't strongly emphasize any one
area. ndeed, it did not earn the highest marks in category of content. But it scored fairly well at everything and did
not earn low marks anywhere, one of the few sites that can make that claim. t really was a jack of all trades.
635
The site is word oriented. Roughly three-quarters of the stories on the homepage are text-based. Just 12% of
stories took advantage of the video produced by either MSNBC or NBC. This puts it at the mid-low range of the
spectrum for 'ulti'e!ia. On the days we examined, users could at one point access a slide show or an
interactive graphic, but these were few and far between. There were no live components at all.
The lead story often has a video component attached to it, but most other video offerings on the page stand apart
either within a section labeled Video or under the header NBC News Highlights.
A bigger draw may be the ways users can custo'iIe the news or add their own views, but even here the site
doesn't employ as much as others, falling in the mid-high range of the sites studied. Currently, the site has
focused more on making its content mobile, rather than the site itself customizable. n November 2006, the Web
site began offering free video podcasts of NBC's Nightly News and Meet the Press. Earlier, in April 2006, the
channel announced that a specialized, ad-supported version of the Web site would be available free on cell
phones with nternet capability. MSNBC's mobile phone service (called MSNBC.com Mobile) is available on all
major phone networks. nitially it was only text, photos and podcasts, with a notice on the site saying that
multimedia components were expected, but with no timeline mentioned.
1
The new business model is seen to be a
test to gauge how consumers react to advertising on their mobile devices. There are also additional RSS options.
The home page itself, though, is less flexible. There is only a simple key word search. And users can choose
homepage layout, but only for the current view. At the next visit, it's back to MSNBC's design.
How about citizen voice Web 2.0? MSNBC is not the top destination we found for users who want to be heard.
There is no user4generate! content, no user-based blogs, and no live discussion. There are a few ways to be
heard. Some stories allow users to enter into an online chat. Also, users can rate a story and the results are used
in a couple of different ways. First, the results for that story are posted at the bottom of the piece in a star system
along with the number of ratings to date. Second, on each inside page is a list of most popular stories at a given
moment.
As the online home of multiple news outlets (even Newsweek's own site often directs people here) it is not
surprising that bran! identity can get confusing. There is content from all of its family membersMSNBC, NBC,
Newsweekas well as the Washington Post and the wire services. n fact, wire stories make up a good portion of
their top headlines. Staff editors control the content, but again, there seems to be a bit of a split over whether their
mission is to promote the family names or the content itself.
The top stories of the hour command a good amount of the prime real estate. The next three sections promote
reports from each of the three news outlets, followed by Web site-only content only on MSNBC.com. Scrolling
down the page, though, a visitor can eventually get to a list of content organized by topics in the news. The
editorial staff also keeps tight control over where users go once they enter. None of the stories we examined ever
contained links to outside Web sites.
Perhaps in the end, it is the revenue structure, or lack thereof, that attracts people to the site. MSNBC.com
expanded how many ads it contained from September 2006 to February of 2007, but it still remained on the low
end. n September there were just 7 ads, all of which were self-promotional. n 2007, a few more had been added,
including one prominent outside ad per day and a list of sponsored links at the bottom of the page.
Still, the most visible ones are self-promotional and are relatively unobtrusive.
The site doesn't make up for the ad-free environment by asking users to pay. There is no fee-based content at all,
not even the archive. Nor does the site demand that visitors reveal personal information; it has no registration at
all.
0** =$$$.cnn.co'>
Streaming an average of 50 million news videos a month, and averaging about 24 million unique visitors a month,
2
CNN.com comes second to MSNBC among the three cable news sites in traffic.
636
While MSNBC has the advantage of being a partner of MSN, the leading nternet portal in the U.S., CNN benefits
from its commercial relationship with Yahoo, which is the search engine for CNN and sells the advertising
displayed on the site.
3
t is also working to tie together its digital media components. n October of 2006, the
channel formed CNN Events, a division devoted to cross-media marketing that allows a marketer to buy
advertising across the CNN spectrum television, the nternet, and newscasts provided through cell phones and
podcasts.
4
What impression does the site give its users? Like MSNBC, the site seems more about doing many different
things than identifying itself around particular skills. Again like MSNBC, the site did not earn top marks in any one
of our content categories, but scored in the mid-range for all, and earned low marks for none.
The site maintains the cable channel's focus on up-to-the-minute information. But it also makes some effort to
develop its own Web identity with less emphasis on the on-air personalities and more on user's ability to
customize the news. Beyond the top few stories, however, it also relies more often than not on outside wire copy
for its headlines and its breadth.
On the homepage, the latest headlines take up the bulk of the screen view. The lead story dominates the site on
the left of the screen, and is normally accompanied by three or four related stories that have some multimedia
elements. On September 22, 2006 it was a story about the E. coli outbreak in spinach with links to a CNN video
report on the lack of standards for spinach safety and a graphic map of states with E. coli outbreaks.
t adds new content at least every 20 minutes, with a time stamp for the latest update at the top of the homepage
and time stamps at the top of each full story. The focus on continuous updates, though, seems to take priority
over other depth to the news. The site averaged just four related story links to lead story and just over one for
other top headlines.
The CNN name is important on the site, but as with !e"th, takes second seat to timeliness. Most headlines are
wire stories, and those that come from CNN staff carry no bylines, except when stories are taken directly from the
cable channel or occasionally from a sister outlet from the Time Warner family. The layout of the page is by top
news and then by topic area like World, Health, Travel and Law, and the stories here are mostly AP as well.
Overall, CNN.com fell in the high-mid range for the level of brand control.
Under the headlines is a list of video segments, offered again in two ways: either most popular or best video
(though it is not entirely clear how best is determined). Next to that the site displays its premium video content
CNN Pipeline. A commercial-free subscription service of streaming video content, it was launched in December
2005 and has helped to make the site more appealing.
5
CNN puts noticeable effort into letting the user custo'iIe the material. The site scored in the mid-high range
here. Users can create a customized home page. They can also choose to have the information come to them
through RSS with more than 20 feeds, ranging from straight news to blogs, Podcasts (both audio and video) or
even to their mobile phones (an option not yet available at even some of the higher-tech sites we examined but
available on all three cable news sites).
The site's mobile content is in a section called CNN to Go, which includes news headlines, alerts on breaking
news and an audio-video newscast produced specifically for the Web called Now in the News. CNN also offers a
live audio feed of CNN Radio. What's more, nearly all of the content on CNN.com is free. That includes all
archives, a feature quickly fading on many Web sites. Users don't even have to register to go through content, but
can if they choose. The only fee-based content is CNN Pipeline.
n an attempt to be more interactive, CNN launched a citizen journalism initiative in August 2006. Called -
Report, it invites people to contribute news items for possible use on the Web and on the cable channel. On a
subsidiary site called CNN Exchange, users can submit their own news reports, photos or video either on specific
solicited topics or those of their own choosing. CNN editors then screen the material and decide what to publish.
(CNN does not pay for the material).
63-
The user content here stands out among news sites, but some of the more standard ways to invite user input are
absent. There is no place on the homepage for users to post comments, enter live discussion, rate stories or take
part in a user-dedicated blog. Even the ability to email the author is offered in only the most general capacity.
When it comes to 'ulti'e!ia components of its content, the site landed right in the middle of our ranking scale. t
is still heavily based on narrative textit made up roughly 70% of all the content on the homepage. Pre-recorded
video and photography were still the most common other forms, but the site also offered live streams, slide shows
and interactive polls. The lead story was almost always made into a package of reports offered in at least three
different media formats.
When it came to revenue options, the site demands little of users and varies on its use of ads. The only fee-
based content is on CNN Pipeline, a broadband channel providing live streaming video, video-on-demand clips
and video archives. ts subscription fee is $25 a year or $2.95 a month.
6
For the rest of CNN.com, the cost to
users is putting up with a barrage of ads. When it comes to ads, one visit to the home page displayed 19 separate
ads, only 6 of which were self-promotional. But another visit had just six ads, all but one of which was non-CNN
related.
)o& *e$s =$$$.fo&ne$s.co'>
Fox News, the star on cable, lags behind the other two cable news channels online. ts Web site has roughly a third
the audience of its competitors, though it made efforts to address that lag in 2006.
n November, Roger Ailes appointed Ken LaCorte, Fox Television's Los Angeles bureau chief, to head
Foxnews.com and take over all editorial and design functions. He will report directly to John Moody, vice president
of news for the Fox network.
The site was revamped in September 2006 in an effort to streamline the content. t also added new interactive
and delivery features. Visitors to the site can now custo'iIe it as they like and have the option of getting Fox
News headlines on their Blackberry phones and cell phones.
7
As a result, the Fox site now earns the highest
marks for both the level of customization offered on the site and for the level of multi media offerings, and mid-
range marks in all other categories. t has become somewhat more competitive, by those measures, with its rivals.
Even so, Foxnews.com still feeds off the brand identity and strength of the cable channel more than it embodies an
identity for itself. For the most part, the site is the Fox News Channel. The brand promoted here are the Fox
personalities rather than individual stories, to a much greater degree than CNN or MSNBC.
The top of the page is dedicated to the news headlines, but up-to-the-minute news is clearly not given the same
kind of priority as at other cable news sites. t updates every half hour, but there are usually just three or four
headlines, which are brief unadorned reports from wires. Each headline stands alone, sometimes with a related
wire story link underneath. There is little attempt to create coverage packages with multimedia reports or
backgrounders from Fox News. About a quarter of the stories we captured had been augmented somehow by
staff members, whose names, unknown to most, appear on the inside (i.e. landing) page at the very bottom of the
story. What's more, the page has just one overall time stamp of the latest update, rather than time stamps on
each story as is common at other sites.
After top headlines and other latest news from the AP, the page focuses on promoting the Fox brand with
content involving Fox hosts and programs. n the upper right corner when we looked in September 2006 were Fox
News videos, with a Web-exclusive interview with Senator Barack Obama. The interview was an exclusive that
first aired about 10 hours earlier. That same interview also appeared as the lead item in the next section down,
Only on Fox, along with a link to a science report Black hole won't devour Earth, scientists say. Other
subsections on the page also carry the Fox name and previously aired Fox News content: Fox411, Fox Online,
FNC iMag, Fox News Talk and individual program listings.
The site does emphasize the use of 'ulti'e!ia more than those of its cable rivals. Just over half of the content
was text-based (primarily the wire feed stories) with heavy use of video and still photos but also some live
streams, podcast items, polls and interactive graphics. n October 2006, Foxnews.com launched two new video
63%
products, collectively called Fox News Flash.
8
They include two one-minute newscasts, in the morning by Fox &
Friends and in the afternoon by the Fox Report with Shepard Smith. Those news segments can also be received,
without any need to subscribe to the site, in the form of video podcasts.
The site also targeted mobile phone users starting in January 2007 when it launched a new service called
#FOXN, the acronym for the digits you dial to access it. t allows customers to listen to live audio of the cable
channel's on-air broadcasts. The service costs $2.99 a month and so far is available only to Cingular wireless
service customers right now. t will also offer headlines on demand as well as a call-back service to let users know
when a particular program is about to begin on the television channel.
9
n promoting its bran!, the site places little emphasis on making its users part of that identity, ranking in the low-
mid tier of all 38 sites. The personalities on Foxnews.com speak to you much more than you speak to them or
even to each other. The site had one of the lowest user-participation scores of any Web site in the study, offering
only the most basic ability to e-mail the author of a report along with a poll on how visitors rated the Fed (related
to a topic to be discussed on Your World later that day). Even the e-mail ability is only occasional, and the e-mail
goes not to the staff member who worked on the piece but to the nameless editor of that section. There is no
way to post comments or rate a story, no live discussion and no user-oriented blog.
When it comes to economics, the main revenue strea' on Foxnews.com is commercial ads. Upon entering the
site, Foxnews.com visitors get pummeled with ads, the bulk of them for outside commercial enterprises. On
average, viewers saw 21 separate ads just on the home page. That puts the site in the top tier of all the ones
examined
There is a news archive, at least two years of which is free to users. t includes stories from all the main sections
of the site, though video components are quite spotty at this point.
All in all, Foxnews.com is the lesser-nourished sibling of the Fox News Channel. Whether attention and resources
begin to even out as the online world expands remains to be seen.
)ootnotes
1.See the MSNBC Mobile section on the Web site for details
2.Scott Leith, CNN to Start Web site for Viewer's Journalism, the Miami Herald, August 3, 2006; Also see Online
News Ownership section, State of the News Media 2007.
3.Elise Ackerman, New media making deals with old news providers, San Jose Mercury News, July 31, 2006
4.As Greg D'Alba, CNN's head of marketing and sales, was quoted as saying, event marketing gives the CNN
brand the opportunity to extend itself beyond the television channel to all digital media, specifically to initiatives
like podcasts and video-on-demand.
5.On September 11, 2006 it used CNN Pipeline to stream the TV channel's coverage of the original terrorist
attacks, exemplifying how it can be used for value added content.
6.While Pipeline is fee-based, most digital offshoots and hybrids are typically advertising-supported and therefore
free for consumers. Unofficially, many nternet-savvy users have figured out how to download virtually any TV
show they want for free. Using file-sharing software, they have set up Web sites where they share digital video
recordings. The most prominent of those is YouTube.
-.Jon Fine, How Fox was Outfoxed, Business Week, February 13, 2006
%.The two newscasts are also available on the News Corp. sister site MySpace.com and through iTunes.
Customers who have video capability on their Cingular, Sprint or Amp'd phones can also get them. Paul J.
Gough, Fox Making News in a Flash, Hollywood Reporter, October 30, 2006
63'
9. Glen Dickson, Fox News Channel Provides Audio-to-Go, Broadcasting & Cable, January 17, 2007
/ublic Attitu!es
What do people think of cable news?
A look at the survey data of public attitudes and public use of the medium reveals signs of declining use, some
declining trust, and in some ways less separation between the audiences of the three main cable channels than
one might expect.
Overall, the number of people who say they regularly get their news from cable channels decreased in 2006, as it
did at all the other news outlets. Just over a third, 34%, described themselves as regular viewers of cable news, a
drop of 4 percentage points from 2004.
1
What Do They thin(J
Whether coincidentally or not, people have also become more skeptical of whether they can trust cable news.
Even CNN, which leads all other outlets in credibility, doesn't command the level of trust it did a decade ago. ts
credibility ratings have been slipping steadily since 1993 (the channel was launched in 1981). n 1998, 42% of all
those surveyed said they believed all or most of what they saw on CNN, the primary metric Pew has used to
measure credibility. n 2006, the figure was 28%.
Still, CNN remains the most trusted source among those surveyed, just slightly higher than the next most trusted
sources CBS's 60 Minutes (27%), C-SPAN (25%) and Fox News (25%).
Fox News, on the other hand, has a loyal audience whose belief in what they see on the channel remains
unchanged. The number of people who believe all or most of what they see on the channel didn't fall in 2006,
making Fox News one of the few media outlets not to have suffered a decline.
2
0able *e$s Believability
1985 - 2006, by Channel
ue 25
U 20
4<
40-
5- BB
5BK
TL
1985 1989 1993 1996 1998 2000 2002
jJCNM
U Fox Mews
)*) MSNBC
Yeai
Design Your Own Chart
640
T T
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Note: Fox News & MSNBC were launched in 1996 & only included in 2000 in the survey
A Reuters/BBC poll released in May 2006, found similar levels of credibility. CNN and Fox were tied when
Americans were asked to name their most trusted specific news sources. Both generated a rating of 11%
modest figures, but higher than those of other media outlets.
3
Those ratings for the two channels don't reflect, however, the partisan leanings of their viewers. n the Pew
Survey responses, Republicans said they believed Fox News more, Democrats CNN.
Over time, however, Democrats have seen both news sources as less credible. n 2006, only about a third of
Democrats (32%) gave CNN the highest marks for credibility, down from almost half (48%) just six years earlier.
One in five (22%) believed most of what they saw on Fox, down from better than one in four (27%) in 2000.
Republicans, in contrast, have come to trust Fox more in the last six years, while growing more skeptical of CNN.
ndeed, in 2006, Republicans were as trusting of Fox (32% believed most of what they heard, up from 26% in
2000) as Democrats were of CNN. And Republicans were just as skeptical of CNN as Democrats were of Fox
(just 22% believed most of what the channel said, down from 33% in 2000).
n short, the newest data on public attitudes seem to put in clear relief the idea that Republicans gravitate to Fox
and Democrats to CNN. Their impressions of the two channels are almost mirror images of each other.
Who Is Watching 0able *e$sJ
Are those reverse images also reflected in the audience profiles of the news channels?
The biennial study on media consumption produced by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
may also be the deepest source for understanding who the cable news viewer is. The survey probes the media
habits of more than 3,000 people every two years.
Using its findings, the average news viewer emerges as just that average. Regular viewers of cable news are
neither richer nor better educated nor better informed than regular users of other news outlets.
4
The regular cable
news viewer can be personified as a married, middle-aged man who has at least 14 years of education. He earns
well, with a median income of $62,000, and tends to live in the suburbs. He has a high degree of hard-news
consumption, and that links to his moderately high knowledge of current affairs. He is fairly adaptive to technology
(more likely than other news consumers to own a PDA, iPod or Tivo). Compared to viewers of other media, the
cable news viewer earns more (local and network news viewers have a median income of $45,000) and is also
much more adaptive to technology. He is also younger than viewers of network news (who are nearly 53 years of
age). The average cable viewer is 47.5, and there are only marginal differences by channel.
How does this reflect in his political leanings? He is more often than not a political independent and describes
himself as having a moderate ideology.
Are there any differences between regular viewers of the three cable channels? The biggest difference is political
ideology. After that, however, the differences may not be as great as some might imagine.
Using Pew's media consumption survey, we have compiled a profile of the average viewer of different media
outlets and sectors.
The average viewer of Fox News identifies himself as conservative in ideology (although he classifies his party
affiliation as independent).
The average CNN viewer, in contrast, self-identifies as being a moderate, but also tends to be registered as
independent.
The MSNBC viewer tends to be a Democrat, and describes himself as a political moderate.
641
Fox News viewers are the oldest at 48.7 years, followed by CNN (47.1) and MSNBC (46.5). Of the three, the CNN
viewers have the lowest median income, $45,000 a year. n contrast, both MSNBC and Fox News viewers make
$62,000.
One other difference between the viewers of the three channels is their news knowledge. n a fairly simple test,
regular viewers of CNN were able to answer more current-affairs questions correctly than viewers of Fox News or
MSNBC.
5
Out of the three questions on current affairs that were asked in the survey, CNN viewers got two
correct. The Fox News and MSNBC viewers just got one correct. (The questions asked respondents to name
which party had a majority in the House of Representatives, the current U.S. secretary of state, and the president
of Russia). That puts CNN viewers on par with viewers of network news, but more knowledgeable than local-news
viewers (who got just one question correct).
What does this audience profile portend? One possibility is that the audience is fracturing, with the most liberal
audiences heading to MSNBC, a more moderate group at CNN and the more conservative at Fox. But that would
probably be an oversimplification. The networks are also dividing by style and even somewhat by topic. MSNBC is
moving to make politics a brand, with a large dose of opinion and personality. CNN has moved further away from
talk on its main channel, but toward it on Headline News. And Fox is holding steady. And the audience declines
across the board suggest that the three channels may be competing for each others' audiences in the months to
come.
)ootnotes
1.The Pew Research Center for the People & Press, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July
30, 2006. Online at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageD=1067
2.n 2000, 26% of those surveyed believed what they saw on Fox News, and in 2006 the figure had barely
dropped, to 25%.
3.The poll was conducted in 10 countries by research firm GlobeScan on behalf of Reuters, BBC and the Media
Center. Trust Catching Up with Media Technology: Poll, Reuters, May 3, 2006.
4.The Pew Research Center conducted its latest biennial survey on news consumption in April-May 2006. t is
based on telephone interviews conducted among 3,204 adults nationwide. t was released on July 30, 2006.
Online at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportD=282
5.The Pew Research Center for the People & Press, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July
30, 2006. See topline at: http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/282.p
Alternative *e$s
An International /ers"ective
Three new channels entered the fray of international 24-hour English-language news in 2006. BBC World News,
backed by the well-established British broadcaster, expanded from three hours to full-time in the United States.
The other two, Al Jazeera and France 24, were new channels making their global launch in English, with the U.S
just one piece of that bigger story.
All three, with their disparate reputations and infrastructure, faced a host of challenges.
First, audience trends suggest that the number of cable subscribers for the existing channels may have reached its
peak in the U.S. The most established TV broadcasters are working hard to lure back viewers, and the three U.S.
cable news channels saw their combined audiences decline.
642
Second, all three new international channels have limited exposure in the U.S. For American audiences to see
them, the new channels have to negotiate carriage with cable operators so they can be aired. And cable
distributors, who have a limited capacity for the number of channels they can carry, may not be eager to give up
valuable space for niche international news channels. For their part, the U.S. cable news channels are all backed
by influential U.S. media conglomerates and are also combined in package deals with other, more lucrative,
entertainment and/or sports programming. The new foreign imports have no such advantages. So the
international news channels, with their niche appeal, have had to make do with a small start in the U.S. television
landscape. BBC World and France 24 are accessible in only one market each, while Al-Jazeera, which faces
political as well as economic concerns, can be viewed only online. According to Chris Daly, a professor at Boston
University, it seems highly unlikely that there would ever be a mass market in the United States for journalism
that originates in Britain or anywhere else.
1
Survey research supports that view. According to the latest Pew Research Center biennial survey of U.S. news
consumption, fewer people are following international news closely (dropping 13 percentage points, from 52% in
2004 to 39% in 2006). n a separate question, more than half the respondents (58%) said they follow international
news only when something important is happening.
2
International 0able *e$s 0hannels
At a #lance
BB0 Worl! Al 5aIeera -nglish )rance 2:
Baunch Date
June 1, 2006
+,(#( &aunch-
November 15, 2006 December 7, 2006
<$ner
BBC Worldwide
(public
broadcaster)
Emir of Qatar (privately owned)
France TV & TF Joint
Venture (public-
private)
Base! in London (U.K.)
Doha (Qatar) + 3
broadcast centers: Kuala
Lumpur (Malaysia),
London, & Washington
D.C.
ssy-les-
Moulineaux (near
Paris, France)
Infra4
structure
50 bureaus
worldwide;
250 foreign
correspondent
s
20 bureaus worldwide; 800
total employees; 500+
journalists
180 journalists
Bu!get not a%aila'le $1 billion for launch
$100 million (80
million euros)
each
4househol!
s
2 million in the U.S.;
281 million
worldwide
80 million homes worldwide
80 million
homes
worldwide
each
4geogra"hi
c
200
countries
worldwide
not a%aila'le
100
countries
worldwide
Where in the
U.S. can you
see itJ
New York
City
(Cablevision)
nternet Stream (Jump TV &
VDC) and Houston
(GlobeCast TV)
Washington
D.C. (Comcast);
UN
Headquarters
Website www.bbc.co.uk |english.aljazeera.net www.france24.com
Source: Multiple sources, please refer to section footnotes
643
BBC .orld
The BBC Worldwide division of the British Broadcasting Corporation made its first foray into the realm of U.S. 24-
hour cable news networks in April, 2006.
t signed a deal with Cablevision to distribute a 24-hour news channel called BBC World on its digital stream in the
New York area (the largest Nielsen television market). The agreement helps the British news channel reach 2
million Cablevision subscribers in the New York metropolitan area. Before the Cablevision deal, BBC news was
available only through 30-minute segments aired on PBS stations or on BBC America, BBC's channel for
entertainment programming. BBC America, which was launched in the U.S. in 1998, is distributed by Time Warner
(where the news airs in a three-hour block in the morning).
The 24-hours news channel went on the air in June 2006. A month later, it also began to air World News Today, a
one-hour breakfast program (7 a.m. ET) aimed specifically at the American audience, though it is broadcast from
BBC's London headquarters. Anchored by George Alagiah, it competes directly with the American network
morning news shows.
3
While its American audience is minuscule compared with the number of households reached by its U.S. rivals
(see Audience), BBC World News executives see it as a good start and hope to sign on more cable systems in
2007. As media critics report, they hope to attract educated, affluent American professionals and through them,
coveted advertising dollars.
4
n the promotion campaign of the launch, BBC World executives stressed their content as an alternative to Fox
News and CNN. Targeting the hard-news consumer, their strategy hinged on BBC's content and experience in
telling both sides of the story. t hopes to convince American viewers that it will be unbiased, objective and a
better alternative than the existing choices.
Globally, the BBC is probably the leading television and radio brand of all and is counting on that fame to
overcome the obstacles it is facing in its entry into the U.S. television market.
n contrast, the two other international news channels, Al Jazeera and France 24, entered the international news
scene for the first time. For them, the U.S. is just one of the many markets in which they have to compete and
make a place for themselves.
Al/Ja0eera English
After multiple delays, the English-language sibling of the controversial Arab Al-Jazeera Network (formerly known as
Al-Jazeera nternational) launched on November 15, 2006. Unlike its sister network, which focuses only on the
Middle East for an Arabic-speaking audience, Al-Jazeera English is aimed at the larger English-speaking
audience around the world.
Unlike BBC World, Al-Jazeera is privately owned and comes with the strong financial backing of the oil-rich Emir
of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. He is reported to have spent $1 billion on the channel launch already.
Not that it doesn't come well equipped. The channel employs more than 500 journalists, including a number of
veteran Europeans and Americans,
5
working in about 20 bureaus across Latin America, Asia, Africa and the
Middle East.
6
n addition, the channel gets support from the Arabic Al-Jazeera network, with which it will share
resources such as news crews and footage.
7
Al-Jazeera English is the first English-language news channel to be based in the Middle East, in Doha, Qatar.
Newscasts will come from four locations Doha; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; London, and Washington D.C.
The channel launched with 12 hours of programming, but expanded to 24 hours by early 2007. Apart from news
updates from its four broadcast centers, it has business and sports programs as well as news analysis and talk-
shows (for example, the Riz Khan Show).
644
t is carried on cable and satellite systems in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. For American viewers,
however, the channel is barely accessible, even though Washington is one of its key broadcast centers.
Despite talks that went on for more than a year, no American cable distributor had agreed to sign a deal with the
channel by the end of 2006. At launch, it could be accessed only on four little-known platforms VDC and Jump
TV (where the channel is streamed over the nternet), GlobeCast, a niche satellite network, and Fision, a new
fiber-optic network based only in Houston that itself launched in December, 2006.
8
The reluctance stems essentially from of the reputation the Arabic Al-Jazeera. Branded by the Bush
Administration as anti-American, it is also one of the most aggressive news operations in the Middle East, and, at
point or another, has been banned in many Middle Eastern states. t has even been accused of having ties to the
Al-Qaeda (see PEJ's Al-Jazeera Timeline and nterview in August 2006). Media watchdog organizations, such as
the very conservative Accuracy in Media (AM) and the more respected Middle East Media Research nstitute
(MEMR) are critical of its coverage and what they consider its dubious connections. They believe the same kind of
reporting will carry through on the English Channel.
But that has not deterred the channel, or its executives. Nigel Parsons, managing director, says viewers of the
English version should not expect to see the Al-Jazeera that the Arab world watches daily.
9
Whether it will be able
to convince U.S. television distributors (and advertisers) is another question.
France 12
The French, too, added their voice to the international media scene in 2006.
Their 24 hour news channel France 24 went on air in December 2006. A joint venture between the public
broadcaster France Televisions and TF1, France's biggest commercial network, the channel airs simultaneously in
French and English from its headquarters near Paris. n addition to its own 180 journalists, it will draw on TF1
and France Televisions' correspondents.
10
As with Al Jazeera English, the U.S. is just a small part of the channel's reach. t is broadcast across the world on
cable and satellite networks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Washington area in the United States. At
launch the channel came into about 80 million homes in about 100 countries.
Like BBC World and Al-Jazeera, though, France 24 finds most of those 80 million homes outside the U.S. So far,
it can be seen only in the U.N. headquarters in New York and in the Washington area. n the capital, it airs on the
Comcast cable system's digital stream with the help of the MHz network, a D.C.-based television network that
promotes international programming and helps it get cable, satellite and nternet exposure in the U.S.
11
n addition,
the Best of France 24 was featured on its national program stream, which is carried on PBS stations, GlobeCast
TV (which also carries Al-Jazeera) and DirecTV starting in January 2007.
12
President Jacques Chirac is said to be the force behind making France 24 a reality. n 2003, a report by the
French Parliament argued for the creation of the channel to counter and balance (Anglo-American)
mperialism."
13
According to its mission statement, France 24 aims to convey the values of France throughout the
world. As Alain de Pouzilhac, who heads the new channel, says, this channel has to discover international news
with French eyes, as CNN (does). with American eyes.
14
While some critics question the channel's credibility given its government support, which includes $112 million in
subsidies, channel executives insist that it is editorially independent and nonpartisan. Pouzilhac says the channel
will demonstrate that as it gears up to cover the French elections in April 2007. He also hopes to attract viewers
by covering areas that are generally under-reported developments in Africa, for example, where many
countries are former French colonies.
Plans include a Web site and further expansion by 2009. According to media reports, channel executives say it
will earn about $9 million in revenues by 2008, and expect advertising revenues of $4 million in 2007. However,
as the same media reports indicate, this still leaves France 24 about $100 million in debt.
15
645
All three channels, then, have ambitious plans to add their perspective to international news coverage. And all are
optimistic that in time there will be enough viewers for what they have to offer in the U.S. as well.
0urrent T+
One channel that seems to have succeeded in capturing an American audience is Current TV. Launched on
August 1, 2005 by the entrepreneur Joel Hyatt and the former vice president and Democratic presidential
nominee Al Gore, the channel has been making waves.
16
ts viewership is growing, it is making a profit and it is
expanding both online and internationally.
Boasting of the first national network programming created by, for and with 18 to 34 year olds,
17
Current TV's
selling proposition is a participatory model that claims to give its citizen journalists the kind of power that used to
be enjoyed only by the mainstream media.
The channel is also distinguished by its short-form programming. Programs consist of a series of short
segments, each called a pod. They are 15 seconds to 5 minutes long and cover a range of issues aimed at young
adults. Some are professionally produced, others are viewer-created content (VC2). Within three months of
launch, VC2 made up 30% of all programming.
18
While it is not strictly a news channel, one of its key regular pods is Google Current, which runs at the top and
bottom of each hour. The pod displays the most popular Google news searches in the past hour. t is about three
minutes long and has an anchor going through the top stories. n addition to this regular pod, many of the VC2
pods deal with events in the news and current affairs.
One of the mantras of the network is that there are no editors who decide what the news on those segments is.
As the channel puts it, news isn't what the network thinks you should know, but what the world is searching to
learn.
19
The channel is carried in most U.S. cities through agreements with Comcast, Time Warner Digital (where it can be
seen on the digital tier), DirecTV and a host of cable companies. When it launched, it was available only in Los
Angeles and New York, and those two markets gave it an initial audience of 20 million households.
20
Projections for
2006 put the number at about 30 million. While that is considerable compared with other international news
channels, it is still too small to be counted by Nielsen; the general threshold of success for aspiring cable or
satellite channels is about 40 million homes.
Even with a limited number of on-air subscribers, and only about a year in existence, analysts estimate Current TV
to be making a profit. n August 2006, the Kagan Research analyst Derek Baine predicted that the channel would
turn a profit of $3 million on estimated revenue of $47 million in 2006.
21
The success is also attracting advertisers. Baine estimated that Current TV earned advertising revenue of about
$10 million in 2006, and that it would go up to $19 million in 2007. ndeed, advertising on the channel is also in
short-form. Each pod is accompanied by one isolated creative brand message (i.e., an ad) up to 60 seconds in
length. n addition, there's a longer ad spot, up to three minutes long, every hour. The channel has even
experimented with viewer-created advertising.
22
Current expanded its online presence in September 2006 in a joint venture with Yahoo nc. They launched four
Web-based broadband channels (some content will be aired on the TV channel). Each channel, supported by
advertising, deals with a specific subject area buzz or popular Yahoo search subjects, traveler, action on
action sports and driver dealing with automotive topics.
Current TV is even going international. n October 2006, the channel signed a deal with British Sky Broadcasting
(BSkyB) to start a version of the viewer-created digital-video news format for the United Kingdom and reland.
23
The buzz around the channel is largely connected to its potential rather than to its performance right now,
especially given the changing media landscape and growing appetite for viewer-created content. According to the
New York Times, it has lived up to its billing as a network that gives its audience a voice in the programming.
24
646
And based on response from its competition, the concept has appeal. n November 2005, MTV announced it
would start pursuing viewer-created content and purchased the nternet hub iFilms.
25
More Recently, NBC has
created a channel on YouTube to promote its programming, and CNN began CNN Exchange, a Web site
dedicated to viewer-created content.
*e$s as 0o'e!y. or 0o'e!y as *e$s
For some years now, Americans have increasingly been getting daily news headlines and analysis from an
unlikely source Comedy Central. The network, owned by Viacom, currently has two of the most popular
political news and satirical programs in America the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report.
The Daily Show, launched in 1996, airs Monday to Thursday at 11 p.m. (ET). ts format is a mixture. The first half
resembles a regular newscast with headlines and features (accompanied by satirical graphics and commentary),
while the second half is more like a talk show, with a one-on-one guest interview.
The show launched with the former ESPN commentator Craig Kilborn as the host. n 1999, he resigned to start a
late-night comedy-variety show on CBS and was replaced by Jon Stewart (who negotiated his name into the
show's title a year later). t is under Stewart's tenure that the show has become a big success.
n 2006, the Daily Show averaged 1.6 million viewers (up 12% from 2005), Comedy Central reports.
26
The year
also saw ratings jump 12% the show's best performance in the last 10 years, according to the channel. Survey
data collected by the Pew Research Center also indicates a surge in popularity. According to its biennial news
consumption survey, viewership doubled from 2004 to 2006 (from 3% to 6% of respondents).
27
The program also has a strong following online, where it is available in short video segments soon after the actual
broadcast. According to Comedy Central executives, the Daily Show was the most popular section on the
network's Web site in 2006, drawing 2.8 million viewers a month.
28
The show is not just attracting viewers, but impressing media critics as well. Since 1999, the show has won 5
Emmy awards and two Peabody awards; all credited to Stewart, former executive producer Ben Karlin and the
head writer, David Javerbaum.
29
Building on the show's success, Comedy Central introduced a spin-off, the Colbert Report, in October 2005.
30
t
also runs four days a week for half an hour, at 11:30 p.m. ET directly after the Daily Show (and promoted at the
end of it every night).
Anchored by Stephen Colbert, previously one of the Daily Show's popular correspondents, the Colbert Report is
more a satire of the talk-show culture, particularly of the O'Reilly Factor, with Colbert playing a self-important
know-it-all correspondent.
31
Helped by a large lead-in audience, the Colbert Report has also proved a hit, and has helped Comedy Central
stretch its audience later into the night. t generated 1.2 million total viewers in 2006.
32
That was 60% more than the
program that aired in that time slot in 2005, a talk show called Too Late with Adam Corrolla.
Online, the Colbert Report also ranked just behind the Daily Show with a total of 2.5 million viewers. According to
Comedy Central, site views for the fourth quarter of 2006 grew 165% over the same quarter in 2005 (when the
show launched).
33
Even with such success, the Comedy Central shows still trail late-night programming on broadcast TV. As of
December 2006, the late-night network shows had double or more the audience of the Daily Show. According to
the trade magazine Media Life, NBC's The Tonight Show with Jay Leno leads the pack of late-night network
shows, with an average of 6.2 million viewers in December 2006. t is followed by CBS's Late Show with David
Letterman (4.2 million viewers) and then by ABC's hard-news Nightline (3.2 million).
34
But Doug Herzog, President of Comedy Central, believes that era is over. He was quoted in the Los Angeles
Times in 2005 as saying of the network shows that those traditional formats are growing tired, and younger
64-
viewers are growing tired of them.
35
There is some evidence that men 18 to 34 years old are moving from late-night
broadcast shows to cable.
36
Media and advertising executives have notices the channel's success as well, attributing it to both effective
counter-programming and to the shows' ability to get away with more daring content (they are free from the FCC
content restrictions) at that hour.
37
Whether or not they can overtake network audiences, the success of both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report is
undeniable. So much so, indeed, that Fox News is planning a satirical news show of its own. With one season
confirmed in March, the show is planned to be a weekly, shown Sunday nights, with a decidedly non-liberal bent,
unlike the Comedy Central shows.
38
)ootnotes
1. Shelley Emling, British Media Crave U.S. Audience; Political deology, Better Coverage Cited, the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, June 18, 2006
2. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership,
July 30, 2006. Online at: http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/282.pdf (Q56 and Q57)
3. David Bauder, BBC World News Breaks into U.S. Market, Associated Press, June 1, 2006. See also Jon
Friedman, The BBC Hopes to Attract U.S. Viewers, MarketWatch.com, July 3, 2006.
4. Robert Macmillan, Britons Wants U.S. to Read All About it, Reuters, July 9, 2006
5. Besides the well-known American Dave Marash, News personalities hired by Al-Jazeera English include Sir
David Frost (from the BBC), David Foster (Sky News) and Riz Khan (CNN).
6. Paul Farhi, Al Jazeera's U.S. Face, Washington Post, November 15, 2006
-. bid.
%. Gail Shister, U.S. ndifference Dismays Al-Jazeera English Anchor, Philadelphia nquirer, November 15, 2006
'. Hassan M. Fatah, A New Al Jazeera with a Global Focus, New York Times, November 13, 2006
10. The channel launched with 390 employees, including 180 journalists. About France 24, on the France 24
Web site www.france24.com
11.MHz network reaches 4.9 million viewers throughout the entire Washington metro area via broadcast, cable
and satellite. http://www.mhznetworks.org/about/whoweare
12. MHz Network Press Release, MHz Launches France 24, December 7, 2006.
Online at: http://www.mhznetworks.org/news/2243.
13. The official explanation is that Chirac's interest grew from the 2001 terror attacks in the U.S., and that
the channel will be one way to correct the growing misunderstandings among cultures. John Ward Anderson,
All News All the Time, and Now in French, Washington Post, December 7, 2006
14. John Ward Anderson, All News All the Time, and Now in French, Washington Post, December 7, 2006
15. Dan Carlin, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera. and France 24?, Business Week, December 4, 2006
16. Karen Tumulty & Laura Locke, Al Gore: businessman, Time Magazine, August 8, 2005
64%
1-. Stephen Warley, Youth News on Demand, www.TVSpy.com, September 14, 2005. According to
recent studies, teenagers and young adults prefer the nternet over traditional media, consume news at their
convenience and want the opportunity to participate in the overall newsgathering process.
1%. The editorial process for selecting which viewer segments to air involves both Current TV staff and
outsiders. Current TV editors pick the segments they consider good for airing and then post them on the Web
site, www.current.tv. Viewers can then view them on the site and vote on which ones run on the channel.
1'. Jacques Steinberg, For Gore, a reincarnation on the other side of the camera, the New York Times, July
25, 2005
20. t inherited this number of subscribers because it took over the channel space, also known as bandwidth,
of an older channel, NewsWorld nternational (NW).
21. Joe Garofoli, Gore's TV dea Seems More Current, San Francisco Chronicle, August 14, 2006
22. Randi Schmelzer, Current TV tries democratizing ads, Ad Week, September 26, 2005
23. BSkyB is received by 8.2 million households in the British sles. Tom Steinhart-Threlkeld, Current TV
Heads Overseas, MultiChannel News, October 6, 2006
24. Jacques Steinberg, For Gore, a reincarnation on the other side of the camera, the New York Times, July
25 2005
25. James Hibberd, Progress report: the new nets, Television Week, November 14, 2005
26. Viewership data provided by Comedy Central Corporate Communications, January 8, 2007
2-. The Pew survey contrasts the show with Fox News's O'Reilly Factor, which is watched regularly by a
just slightly higher number 9% of respondents. The O'Reilly Factor averages 2 million viewers every night,
and is considered the top-rated cable news show in the country (see Cable TV Audience).
2%. Viewership data provided by Comedy Central Corporate Communications, January 8, 2007
2'. n a move that took many media experts by surprise, Karlin resigned from the Daily Show in December
2006. The New York Times reported that Javerbaum had wanted to leave as well but had been persuaded to stay.
Jacques Steinberg, The Executive Producer of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report is Leaving, New York
Times, December 2, 2006
30. Jon Stewart's company, Busboy Productions, launched the show. See Howard Kurtz, TV's Newest
Anchor: A Smirk in Progress, Washington Post, October 10, 2005
31. Howard Kurtz, TV's Newest Anchor: A Smirk in Progress, Washington Post, October 10, 2005
32. Viewership data provided by Comedy Central Corporate Communications, January 8, 2007
33. These do not represent unique viewers. Data received from Comedy Central Corporate Communications
on January 8, 2007.
34. Late-Night Ratings sourced from Nielsen Television ndex in Toni Fitzgerald, Dayparts Update, Media
Life Magazine, January 5, 2007
35. Scott Collins, Cable is Up Late, Plotting TV Talk Show's Demise, Los Angeles Times, August 15, 2006
64'
36.Examples of the trend include the success of Cartoon Network's adult swim shows cartoons that are
adult-oriented, such as Family Guy and ESPN's SportsCenter at 11 p.m. Mark Glassman, Cable Shows are
Stealing Male Viewers from Broadcast TV, New York Times, May 9, 2005
3-.Scott Collins, Cable is Up Late, Plotting TV Talk Show's Demise, Los Angeles Times, August 15, 2006
3%.Paul J. Gough, Fox News Channel Preps Right Leaning Satire, Hollywood Reporter, November 20, 2006
0able T+
Intro
By the Project for Excellence in Journalism
Cable TV news is maturing. The medium that changed journalism at the end of the last century is no longer a new
technology, with all the growth, experimentation, controversy and sense of zeitgeist that entails.
The audience for the main three cable news channels has not only stopped growing, in 2006 it began to decline.
Even Fox News, though it still dominated the competition, saw its first drop, after six years of meteoric growth.
Financially, the sector remains robust. And 2006 was a particularly big year for Fox News. t began to sign new
license fee agreements with cable carriers, successfully tripling its rates, which put it among the top five channels
in price. With final numbers not yet in, analysts predicted that Fox News would surpass CNN in profitability.
Analysts expected revenues and profits to grow at the other channels, too.
The inevitable question, one seen by other media over the years, is whether cable now has to manage profits as
the audience base declines. The other question is how much cable will invest those rising profits in the nternet
and mobile technology, which are not part of its legacy business of programming television.
The answer will depend on the owners, of course. There was no changing of the guard or major sale in 2006, but
there were more subtle changes. MSNBC, with Microsoft no longer involved and NBC firmly in charge, carried out
a restructuring program, a management shakeup, and a new push toward politics and opinion. At Fox News's
parent, News Corp., Rupert Murdoch settled a simmering dispute over control, and reflected on 10 years of cable
news success. CNN saw Ted Turner, already gone from operational involvement, formally leave its parent
company's board.
The impact on the newsroom of all this is harder to divine, in part because the networks like it that way. Fox News
is building, and expenses generally are rising though not as much as profits but it is less clear how much of
the rise is going into reporters, producers and newsgathering muscle, and how much elsewhere. The clearest
sense one has is that generally the cable news channels, including CNN Headline News, are moving more toward
personalities, often opinionated ones, to win audiences. The most strident voices, such as Keith Olbermann and
Glenn Beck, are among the biggest successes in winning viewers, as is CNN's new crusader, Lou Dobbs. How
much those individual shows affect a channel's overall audience is harder to gauge. Their growth in 2006 was
substantial, particularly among 25-to-54-year-olds, but those gains were not enough to stanch the overall
declines.
650
The shifts toward even edgier opinion are also probably a response to another change Cable is beginning to lose
its claim as the primary destination for what was once its main appeal news on demand That is something the
nternet can now provide more efficiently As cable channels lose their monopoly over breaking news, they will
likely continue to push their identities toward something else That is also a reason that the cable channels are
putting even more effort into their Web sites And there, Fox News is trailing, not leading
The public appears to be becoming more skeptical of cable While trust remains high relative to other media
sectors, it generally is declining The audience is also fragmenting further by ideology, with MSNBC's audience the
most liberal
n short, with age, cable news is showing signs of beginning to suffer some of the same problems other media
have f Act of cable was the immediacy of CNN, and Act was the rise of Fox News, we may be embarking on
new plot twist
Au!ience
The cable news landscape is changing in ways that are more subtle than in previous years, and that hints at
differences not only in the purpose of cable news but also the channels people go to at different times in different
ways
For 2006, four trends stand out
L The average audience of the three main cable news channels was declining
L The drops at Fox News were the largest of all and marked the first time the cable news leader had begun
to bleed viewers
L But there were signs that the cumulative audience, or the number of different people in the course of a
month who view cable news, was still growing With average audience in decline, that would mean more
people visited cable news occasionally but didn't stay as long
L The growth in MSNBC and some individual programs on CNN Headline News seem to be associated
with the rise of even sharper opinions in prime time, and the declines at Fox News raise questions about
whether its longtime evening lineup is losing some of its appeal
L Relative to each other, the three cable news channels performed according to type Fox News remained
well ahead of the competition again While CNN managed to attract the largest share of unique viewers
and did better during big events, Fox News dominated in the number of eyeballs watching at any given
moment MSNBC, meanwhile, stayed in third place, though with new managers at the helm there was
some improvement in its performance, compared to previous years
But with subscribers reaching a plateau, viewership among the three main channels is declining And with more
competition from the Web, PDA's, phones and more (see Digital) the trends of 2006 are only likely to continue
The Three Ty"es of *e$s on 0able
The journalism on the cable news channels, the analyst Andrew Tyndall suggests, serves three distinct sets of
needs
1
The first is News on Demand3 updating the latest headlines available at any time during the 24-hour news cycle
The second is Crisis Coverage, wall-to-wall, comprehensive, on-the-scene, constantly updated journalism on a
handful of essential stories that occur each year Katrina, 9/11, the invasion of raq, the Clinton impeachment,
or the undecided election
The third is Prime-time Personality, News & Opinion Programming3 the evening shows that include a mix of
nightly-newscast-style headlines, opinionated commentary, newsmaker interviews, analysis and true-crime
celebrity programming These are the shows that Fox News and others have made into distinctive programs, not
tied to breaking news, that people arrange their schedule to watch, so-called appointment viewing
651
A close look at which cable audience numbers are declining, and at which times dayparts, to use industry
jargon reveals the different patterns of how people are now beginning to use cable.
Common sense suggests that news on demand would be the kind of coverage most vulnerable to the rise of the
nternet, PDAs and other technologies for instant headlines. ndeed the declines in 2006 in the most basic
numbers average audience seem to confirm that.
But the audience data suggest something more. The audiences for prime-time news and opinion programming
dropped even more than daytime, a sign that it's not just news on demand that is losing its appeal. Some prime-
time opinion and personality programming on CNN and even more on Fox News may be losing sway.
The audience for crisis coverage long cable's biggest draw in raw numbers is harder to discern from 2006.
The numbers were not strong compared with other years, but it may be that the crises of 2006 simply did not
command the kind of interest of previous ones.
And the problems at Fox News, new this year, appear to be across the board, hinting that the news channel may
be facing its first significant signs of getting middle aged.
For all that, if a fourth channel, CNN Headline News, is thrown into the mix, the message becomes slightly more
nuanced. ts audience grew substantially in 2005, putting it within arm's reach of MSNBC. But in 2006, despite the
gains of one notable prime-time program, the news channel over all saw viewership decline.
0able Au!iences1 +ie$ershi" Declines
By the most basic measure, average audience each month, the viewership for the main three news channels
collectively in 2006 was down in both dayparts.
2
Cable news viewership can be measured in two different ways to arrive at an average monthly audience. The first
is median, which measures the most typical audience number each month. The industry tends to use a different
measure, mean, which creates a simple average from each day's total. We report both here, though we believe
mean tends to exaggerate the effect of big stories and thus is less accurate than median (see sidebar on
measuring the audience). By both measures, however, the numbers for the three main channels were not good.
Using median, the most typical audience, the prime-time audience for the three cable channels together suffered
an 8% decline in 2006.
n viewers, that means 2.5 million people were watching cable news during prime time in 2006, down from 2.7
million in 2005. A year earlier, 2004, prime-time audience was up 4% from 2003.
While we had noted previously that the pace of audience growth in cable had fallen sharply since 2003, this was
the first time in six years that there was an actual decline.
0able *e$s /ri'e Ti'e Au!ience
1998 - 2006, Channels Combined
652
Source: PEJ Analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
Design Your Own Chart
The trend in daytime
viewership was
similarly negative.
Daytime median
audience for all three
channels fell 4% in
2006, to 1.5 million
viewers, down from 1.6
million in 2005. A year
earlier, daytime
median audience had
risen by 3%.
Calculating cable news
viewership for 2006
based on the mean, as
the cable channels do,
paints an even bleaker
picture
0able *e$s
Dayti'e
Au!ience
1998 - 2006, Channels
Combined
653
Source: PEJ Analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
Design Your Own Chart
The mean prime-
time audience for
all three channels
combined fell by
12%, to 2.50
million, down from
2.84 million the
year before. A year
earlier, prime
audience was
essentially flat,
growing less than
a percent.
n daytime, the mean
audience fell 11% in
2006, to 1.54 million,
down from 1.73 million
in 2005. A year earlier,
the mean daytime
audience had grown
7%.
Deeper probing into the
different ways of
calculating reveals still
more clues about why
the audience is down.
For instance, the
fact that the
declines in median
audience were
greater at night,
when the opinion-
and personality-
driven
programming are
on, reinforce the
idea that cable's
problems go
deeper than just
people gravitating
to other sources
for breaking news.
And the greater drop in
mean, the
measurement more
sensitive to audience
spikes, supports the
idea that the channels
enjoyed less of a
bounce in 2006 from
crisis coverage than in
years past.
0able *e$s /ri'e Ti'e Au!ience #ro$th
1998 - 2006, by Channel
654
Source: PEJ Analysis of Nielsen Media Research data, used under license
Design Your Own Chart
20021 0hannel by
0hannel
The losses in
viewership, however,
were not consistent
across the three main
channels. Fox News,
the only channel that
was gaining in years
past, began to lose
audience, and did so
at the steepest rate of
all. MSNBC, in turn,
began to gain.
The Fox e!s
Channel
Fox News remains the
cable leader, but for
the first time since its
launch, it saw losses in
viewership year-to-
year. What's more, the
drop was consistent
across the course of
the year and across
the dayparts, as well
as being sharper than
its competitors.
From January to
December 2006, Fox
News's median prime-
time viewership fell by
14%. That was in
sharp contrast to the
year before, when it
was the only cable
news channel to see
an increase (9%). The
story was repeated in
daytime, when its
median viewership
dropped 12% in 2006.
A year earlier it had
grown 5%.
f we look at the
mean, things
don't change for
the better. Fox
News saw almost
equal declines in
the two dayparts,
16% in prime
time and 15% in
daytime.
ndeed, comparing the number of viewers in 2006 to 2005,
Fox News saw a decline in virtually every month, with the
greatest gap in the latter half of the year (incidentally, when
the big stories of 2006 took place).
)o& *e$s +ie$ers
2002 vs. 2003
%onth
0hange in 'ean
"ri'e4ti'e au!ience
0hange in 'ean
!ayti'e au!ience
5anuary
46.2% 47.6%
)ebruary
43.2% 46.8%
655
%arch
49.2% 487.2%
A"ril
4:.7% 46.:%
%ay
42.2% 2.2%
5une
420.9% 4;.9%
5uly
48;.;% 40.3%
August
42;.3% 3.:%
Se"te'be
r
428.2% 432.;%
<ctober
427.;% 482.6%
*ove'ber
482% 483.2%
Dece'ber
486.9% 486%
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license
f one accepts the notion that daytime is more a period
for news on demand, and the evening more a time for
personality and opinion programming, Fox News
appears to be suffering equally in both kinds of news.
That raises several possibilities. Fox News could be losing
viewers to other cable channels (some MSNBC and Headline
News programs are growing). Or some of its viewers could be
gravitating to other media. And in fact the declines in both
dayparts suggest that the problem may be some of both.
Some analysts, such as Andrew Tyndall, also raise the
question whether Fox News aligned itself too closely with
Bush Administration and the Republican Party. f so, it could
be suffering a backlash as the political winds change.
Or it may be in part an age problem; the Fox shows may
have become familiar. The lineup in prime time has not
changed appreciably in recent years. f that is the problem,
then just as CNN began to do in the late 1990s, Fox News
may find that it has reached a peak with its current
programming and
begin to re-imagine
some of its shows
(something CNN has
continued to struggle
with).
t also may be that
its competitors,
notably MSNBC and
Headline News,
have found ways to
finally begin to chip
away at some of
Fox News's
audience.
Whatever the causes,
if the declines
continue, they may be
compounded by
something else: both
CNN and MSNBC
have more popular
Web sites. That could
draw even more
breaking-news
audiences away (see
Digital).
3
For all this, of
course, one should
not lose sight of the
fact that Fox News
remains the
dominant channel,
both in terms of
overall audience
and individual
shows.
n 2006, more than
half the people
watching cable news
were watching Fox
News (as they have
since 2001).
The mean audience
for Fox News in prime
time was 1.4 million in
2006. That is more
than triple the
viewership of MSNBC
(378,000) and almost
double that of CNN
(739,000). More than
half (55%) of all
viewers watching
prime-time cable
news in 2006 were
tuned into Fox News.
During the day, 54% of the viewers watching the three main
cable news channels were tuned to Fox, again about double
CNN and more than triple MSNBC. Fox News averaged
824,000 viewers, against 472,000 for CNN and 244,000 for
MSNBC.
By program, Fox News had nine of the top 10 shows,
according to Nielsen rankings.
4
Only CNN's Larry King broke
that monopoly at No. 7. The O'Reilly Factor was again the
most-watched show on cable news, averaging 2 million
viewers a night.
656
The To" 80 0able *e$s Sho$s
Dece'ber 2002
Sho$ 0hannel
Average Au!ience
=in 000s>
The <?eilly )actor
)o&
*e$s
209:
Hannity @ 0ol'es
)o&
*e$s
8322
<n the ecor! $A #reta +an Susteran
)o&
*e$s
8722
The )o& e"ort $A She"ar! S'ith
)o&
*e$s
8786
S"ecial e"ort $A Brit Hu'e
)o&
*e$s
8709
The <?eilly )actor =re"eat>
)o&
*e$s
8036
Barry Cing Bive
0** 8026
The Big Story $A 5ohn #ibson
)o&
*e$s
969
Stu!io B $A She"ar! S'ith
)o&
*e$s
920
Dour Worl! $A *eil 0avuto
)o&
*e$s
;;0
Source: Nielsen Media Research figures at MediaBistro.com
Note: average audience figures reflect all persons ages 2 and up (P2+)
At CNN, meanwhile, viewership declined as well in 2006. The median figures show a fall that was not as steep as
in 2005. t saw a loss of 2% in prime-time median viewership from January to December 2006, far better than the
11% loss in 2005.
CNN's daytime median viewership was actually up 6% from the year before, in contrast to the decline at Fox
News, and better than last year, when it lost 7% of its daytime viewers.
Looking at the numbers using mean, CNN executives have more cause for concern. The channel saw a drop of
12% in average prime-time viewership and about the same decline, 10%, in its average daytime audience.
Even with the drop in overall prime-time audience, some shows did see gains. Lou Dobbs Tonight, for instance,
grew 30% in the fourth quarter of 2006, while Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer's shows saw 15% and 18%
growth.
5
Those shows fared even better among viewers 25 to 54 years old, whom advertisers covet. Dobbs grew
57% in the 25-to-54 demographic in the fourth quarter of 2006 compared to same period in 2005. The Situation
Room with Wolf Blitzer was up 50% and Anderson Cooper 360 was up 24% in the same audience age range
(See News nvestment).
6
"#BC
f Fox News's declines were one major change in the cable news landscape, the other big shift came at MSNBC,
where viewership by any measure grew in both daytime and prime time in 2006.
The channel's prime-time median viewership figures rose 7% in 2006 compared with a loss of 2% the year
before.
t performed equally well during the day. Daytime median viewership grew 7% in 2006, building on the 3% rise in
daytime in 2005.
The metric the industry tends to use, mean, also showed growth at MSNBC. ts average prime-time audience was
up by 3%. n daytime, there was 1% growth.
What factors are working in the channel's favor? Could MSNBC be benefiting from a change of guard or changes
in programming, or was it simply a matter of having news to report?
65-
One potential explanation is greater synergy with NBC News many top-rung NBC anchors appeared on the
channel for election coverage, with favorable results. Top executives say they plan to continue such sharing of
talent. Synergy is also expected to increase with the physical shift of the MSNBC operations to NBC News's New
York headquarters from New Jersey (see News nvestment). MSNBC executives also believe that the changing
political climate in the country is helping the channel. Phil Griffin, an NBC News vice president, was quoted in
Variety as saying, The mood has changed and people are looking for a different kind of coverage.
One prime example of cashing in on the changing political climate is Keith Olbermann's show, Countdown with
Keith Olbermann (8 p.m. ET). Olbermann's is one MSNBC program that has bucked the general trend and
increased its key demographic audience in 2006. Compared with the same quarter a year earlier, Olbermann saw
a 67% rise among viewers 25 to 54 in the fourth quarter of 2006 (also see News nvestment) and a 60% rise in
the overall audience.
7
The steady audience numbers also could help MSNBC's position on the company ladder as NBC Universal
begins its re-structuring and digital initiative in 2007 (see Ownership). Yet all this needs to be kept in context.
MSNBC still lags well behind its two chief rivals and is even challenged by CNN's second network, Headline
News.
C $eadline e!s
n 2005, as we reported last year, CNN's sister channel, Headline News, began to emerge out of the cable news
shadows and to rival MSNBC in viewership.
n 2006, some of its momentum seems to have waned. Despite the launch of an edgy prime-time conservative talk
show that saw big gains, Headline News' overall prime-time and daytime viewership declined slightly. ts mean
prime-time audience was 302,000 in 2006, down 2% from the year before. That left it further behind MSNBC's
378,000.
n daytime, the channel averaged 218,000 viewers, a much steeper decline, 11% compared with 2005. Here, it is
still shy of MSNBC but closer, at 244,000.
The drop in daytime viewers, which was as bad as the drops at CNN or Fox News, may speak to the declining
news-on-demand appeal of cable. Those are the hours when Headline News follows it traditional wheel format of
headlines only every half hour.
0** Hea!line *e$s
Average Au!ience
Dear
/ri'e ti'e +ie$ers
702.000
Dayti'e +ie$ers
2002
28;.000
2003
706.000 2::.000
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license
n prime time, its decline was not as steep as its sister CNN (12%) or Fox News (16%). That is due at least in part
to the success of some of the channel's opinionated prime-time shows, particularly among young audiences.
At the front of that group is Glenn Beck, a former conservative talk radio personality, who anchors from 7 p.m. to 8
p.m. daily. His show grew 119% overall in audience and more than tripled (up 165%) among 25-to-54-year-olds in
the fourth quarter of 2006.
65%
Beck is up against some of cable news' bigger shows (Fox News's Fox Report with Shepard Smith, MSNBC's
Hardball with Chris Matthews and CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer). But their fourth quarter gains in
audience were no more than 20%.
8
Beck stands out, in part, because he may be among the most pugnacious
conservatives on cable TV, and ideological edge, particularly from the right, is a new identity for Headline News.
Beck's show is actually the second most popular Headline News show. n first place is the legal talk show Nancy
Grace (8 p.m. ET). Grace, a lawyer, began making audience inroads when she went on the air in 2005.
Her performance in 2006 was more complicated. The show's overall audience declined 16% in the fourth quarter
while its audience in the 25 to 54 demographic grew 8% (see News nvestment).
9
That might have something to do
with competition MSNBC's Keith Olbermann airs at the same time and he's been seeing huge gains among both
the 25-to-54-year-olds and over all audience. The drop also came, among other things, as Grace became
embroiled in controversy when one of her guests committed suicide after a Grace interview.
Headline News is also attracting viewers in the morning. ts morning show Robin & Company, hosted by Robin
Meade, has seen a ratings surge, especially among the younger demographic. According to CNN, the show's
ratings in October 2006 showed a 71% increase from the previous year among people 18 to 34. Further, Robin &
Company gets about 90% of all viewer response to Headline News's daytime shows, most of which is positive.
10
0u'ulative Au!ience
Another method cable networks use to measure their audience is Cume, short for cumulative audience. The
term refers to the number of different individual (unique) viewers who watch a channel over a fixed period.
Viewers are counted as part of a TV channel's Cume measurement if they tune in for six minutes or longer (they
are typically calculated over the course of a month). Like average audience, Cume is measured by Nielsen Media
Research.
CNN has historically led in terms of Cume and used the to leverage itself to advertisers arguing that advertisers
can reach a greater number of different consumers through its channel over time, even though its a%erage
audience lags significantly behind that of Fox News.
This year, CNN, which provides the Project with data on Cume, released figures only for the final month of the year.
According to those numbers, at least, CNN continues its lead.
But the trend lines, again, are strongest for MSNBC. t grew about 27% in December 2006, year-to-year. CNN's
sister channel, Headline News, was next, with a 24% growth in Cume audience.
0able *e$s 0u'ulative Au!ience
*u'ber of UniEue +ie$ers =in 000?s>
0hannel Dece'ber 2002 Dece'ber 2003
0**
68.696 39.9:9
)o& *e$s
28.398 37.0;7
%S*B0 37.6;3 :2.208
Hea!line *e$s 36.8;3 :2.020
Source: Nielsen Media Research, data provided by CNN
The Cume numbers also reveal something else. Cume was growing at least in December. ndeed, all four
channels had a higher cume in December 2006 than in 2005. This stands in stark contrast to the average
audience trends.
65'
f the December numbers are typical, they suggest that more people tune in to the cable channels now than a year
ago, but are not staying as long. t may also say something about the nature of the major news events of 2006 in
contrast with years past the so-called crisis coverage component of cable journalism. That question deserves a
closer look.
0risis 0overage1 The Big Stories of 2002
What is happening with crisis coverage on cable?
As noted above, the steeper declines seen in mean audience (as distinct from median) suggest that the cable
channels benefited less from crisis coverage in 2006 than in years past.
Over the last decade, the cable channels saw their growth stimulated by major crises. Viewers would come for the
big events often in huge numbers and many of them would begin to watch the channels more afterwards.
Are cable channels now also losing sway in this area? Or was 2006 somehow a slower news year than in years
past?
One way to examine those questions is to take the big months of the year, when coverage spiked because of
major news events, and compare these spikes to the ones registered during previous crises.
n 2006, the big stories were the summertime crisis in the Middle East in July and August and the mid-term
elections in November. (The Middle East crisis overlapped with another major event, the foiled terrorist plot to
bomb American planes in London.)
The Middle East crisis and the terrorist threats led to a surge in cable news viewers in August. CNN saw its
August 2006 prime-time audience up 19% and its daytime audience up nearly 40% compared with August 2005.
The month also saw it generate the largest number of total viewers in the year. MSNBC's prime-time audience
grew just 4% (although daytime was up 36%) compared with August 2005. Fox News actually saw a 29% dip in
prime-time viewership, while daytime viewers grew 5%.
November, the month of the mid-term elections, saw no such spikes. There was little growth in viewership in the
three channels over November the year before growing only 10% over October 2006 in prime time, even
though the election occurred in the second week of the month and, given the dramatic results, carried on with
coverage for weeks after that. n daytime, the channels actually lost about 1% of their viewers.
Compare that to the spikes registered in earlier years. n August 1998, when video of President Bill Clinton's
deposition before a grand jury was released, cable news registered a 71% spike in both daytime and prime-time
viewers from the previous month. The hanging-chad elections in November 2000 that ultimately brought George
W. Bush to power had everyone riveted to the cable news channels and registered 91% growth in prime-time
viewers and 156% growth in daytime compared to the month before.
0able *e$s Au!ience !uring Big -vents
1998 - 2006, Channels Combined, Prime-time Viewers
660
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license Note: Figures reflect average viewers in respective months
What to make of the smaller spikes in 2006?
Of course it is impossible to conclusively compare different news events in different years. Some analysts, such
as Andrew Tyndall and the former CNN correspondent Charles Bierbauer, believe that the crises of 2006 were
simply not as compelling, as news events, as those of other recent years. That is certainly possible, perhaps even
likely. A mid-term election and a Mid-East crisis may not be news on the same magnitude for Americans as
Katrina, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein or September 11.
Nonetheless, given the other declines in 2006 and the growing range of options Americans have for news, it is
also possible that the spikes in cable viewership from major events may just become smaller. t's a question that
deserves monitoring.
The De'ogra"hics of the 0able *e$s Au!ience
Who is watching Cable News? Over all, the typical cable news viewer is likely to be male and middle-aged (mean
age of 48 years) with a college education.
There are some variations by channel. The average Fox News viewer is about 48 years old as well and earns a
higher income, while the average CNN viewer is a year younger, and more likely to have a lower income. The
MSNBC viewer is likely to be younger still, but with a better income than CNN. We provide a more complete
profile of the cable news audience, and what the demographics might signify, in the Public Attitudes sub-chapter.
%easuring the Au!ience
Audience trends in television can be measured using either one of two calculations - median or mean (simple
average).
The cable channels prefer to calculate their year-to-year ratings by converting the Nielsen ratings data into annual
averages using the mean. By that accounting, thanks to an enormous but brief spike during big events, the cable
news audience can be seen as surging. Yet such averaging tends to create a misimpression the idea that the
typical cable audience is very high.
661
n reality, cable ratings are among the most volatile in journalism, spiking and falling wildly with news events. n
most months, there is something closer to a normal base-level cable audience only occasionally punctuated by
spikes during major news events. n mathematical terms, that would argue for looking at the median (defined as
the middle value) rather than the average.
The statistical methodologist Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri explains the choice of median rather
than mean this way: The median is a better indicator of central tendency when there are extremely high or
extremely low observations in the distribution. Those greatly influence the mean, but have little effect on the
median. n other words, the median is the closest on the average to all of the scores in the distribution. Very high
levels of cable viewing during a big event pull the mean too far away from realistic viewing scores. For that
reason, the median is the better indicator of typical viewing levels.
For instance, in 2003, when the war in raq began, mean viewership numbers showed the cable news business
booming up 34% for daytime and 32% for prime time from the year before. But using the median, or the middle
value of the 12 months of that year, the picture that emerged was that cable viewership was basically stable. t
showed no growth during the day and a gain of just 3% in prime time. How can that be? The reason is that cable
news didn't retain the audience that it gained during those first weeks of the war. Median was a better reflection
of a year in which viewership spiked only for 2 months and then fell back down again.
n 2006, the median numbers actually spell better news for cable channels. Taking the average viewership for
2006 and comparing it to 2005 shows a significant decline in the cable news audience down 11% for daytime
and 12% for prime time. But using the median, we see was a decline of just 4% during the day and 8% in prime
time.
Our research team, as well as the staff at the Pew Research Center, believes the median is the fairest way to try to
understand the core audience for cable, given the volatility of ratings spikes. The other measurement, mean or
simple average, tends to be disproportionately inflated by the spikes and, consequently, also exaggerates any
declines in cable audiences when those spikes don't happen.
Median offers a truer sense of the core or base audience, those people who are watching day in and day out,
without ignoring the cumulative effect of the size of the audience that gathers momentarily if extraordinary things
happen.
The %i!4Ter' -lections on 0able
The year 2006 had its share of big stories to reinforce the distinctions between the three main cable news
channels. The biggest was the November mid-term elections.
According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News was the choice for most viewers on Election Day. However, more
people aged 25 to 54 that advertiser-coveted demographic tuned into CNN.
Between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. on November 7, 2006, Fox News scored an average of three million viewers. CNN
was close behind with 2.97 million, followed by MSNBC with 1.95 million. According to the trade publication
Broadcasting & Cable, CNN overtook Fox News in the prime demographics. t attracted 1.33 million of the 25-to-54
group, more than Fox News's 1.25 million.
11
For MSNBC, the numbers actually represent a big improvement over previous major events. ndeed, the success
it saw during its election coverage seems to have translated into a new strategy. Channel executives like general
manager Dan Abrams told TV reporters afterwards they believed that political coverage might just be the niche
MSNBC had been looking for (see News nvestment).
All three channels had invested heavily in their election night coverage and promoted it vigorously. Each had its
marquee anchors up front and brought in a number of high-profile guests and analysts to entice viewers to stay
tuned in (see also our Election Night 2006 report).
662
CNN's election night special, America Votes 2006, was anchored by Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper
and Paula Zahn its full retinue of prime-time stars from the Time Warner Center in New York. n that sense,
the network seemingly used election night as an opportunity to promote its prime-time lineup. The choice of
Dobbs, whose program has become more opinion-oriented, as an anchor was sufficiently controversial to prompt
an Associated Press story reporting on critics questioning the choice.
CNN also used its new and elaborate digital news wall to display real-time information and results. CNN
Pipeline, its nternet broadband channel, was used to stream candidate speeches. n another example of non-
traditional coverage, the channel also invited leading political bloggers under one roof. Both initiatives, however,
experienced some technical difficulties and didn't create the impression CNN hoped for.
Another special investment in 2006 was CNN Election Express Yourself, a trailer tour that traveled across the
country. t involved online activities, video portals and online interaction to get people's opinions on the elections.
t also let users access the CNN Pipeline sections and navigate through the special online election section on its
Web site, America Votes 2006.
MSNBC, which competes on such nights during certain hours against its own sister channel, NBC, tried to create
a niche for itself during the election season, touting its intense political coverage in the weeks leading up to the
voting. On Election Day, MSNBC's special, Decision 2006 was anchored by its cable stars, Chris Matthews and
Keith Olbermann. The talk-show anchors Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough hosted a panel of analysts to
discuss the results. t also used NBC correspondents to add weight to their analysis. The anchors Brian Williams,
Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell all did rounds on the cable channel.
MSNBC also went around the country for the mid-term campaign. The popular anchor Chris Matthews took his
Hardball show to different colleges as part of the channel's coverage. t invited big-name guests to each of the
colleges, which served as the background and audience for each show.
Fox News seemed less crowded on the sets. The veteran anchor Brit Hume led the election special, You Decide
2006, with Shepard Smith on the air before and after. Fox News's chief analyst was Michael Barone of U.S.
News & World Report, a widely acknowledged expert on Congressional races and co-author of the respected
Almanac of American Politics.
)ootnotes
1. Andrew Tyndall of ADT research, who consults with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, is not the only one
to mention these ideas; many media analysts agree on these needs that cable news satisfies.
2. Daytime is defined by cable news as 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Prime time is defined as 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
3. n 2006, the Fox News digital network had a unique online audience of 6 million visitors, far behind CNN's 24
million and MSNBC's 26 million. See Online Ownership.
4. Nielsen Media Research, Weekday Competitive Program Ranking for December 2006, Obtained from Media
Bistro (www.mediabistro.com).
5. Nielsen Media Research figures for Q4 2006 versus Q4 2005 obtained from Media Bistro
(www.mediabistro.com)
6. Figures from CNN Press Relations, e-mail correspondence, January 18, 2007
-. MSNBC was the Only Cable News Network to Gain Viewers in 2006, MSNBC Press Release, January 3,
2007
%. Nielsen Ratings obtained from Media Bistro.com (www.mediabistro.com) indicate an audience growth of 119%
for Glenn Beck. At the same time slot, the Situation Room (CNN) grew 18%, Shepard Smith's Fox Report (Fox
News) dropped 20% and viewership of MSNBC's Hardball fell 1%.
663
9. Nielsen Media Research figures for Q4 2006 versus Q4 2005 obtained from Media Bistro
(www.mediabistro.com).
10. Kevin Forest Moreau, Switching Channels, The Sunday Paper, Georgia, November 2, 2006
11.John M. Higgins, CNN Wins Election Demos; Fox Leads in Total Viewers, Broadcasting & Cable, November
8, 2006
-cono'ics
Though 2006 was a difficult year for cable news in terms of audience, it was a better one financially The reason is
that the economics of cable news are not entirely tied to annual audience trends They are connected to multi-year
contracts cable channels have with cable systems that distribute their content After Fox News renewed its
contracts in 2006 and began to reap the benefits of a decade of growth, the economics of cable news are poised
for some important changes
Five major economic trends stand out for 2006
L Fox News was expected to overtake CNN as the profit leader in cable for the first time, with only more
growth projected for the future
L The reason, in part, is that Fox News began to sign new contracts that tripled the license fees it received
from cable providers The new contracts, replacing the 10-year deals it signed when it launched in 1996,
put the cable news channel into the highest levels of subscription fees for the first time
L Meanwhile, the other cable channels also expected to see profits jump
L For all Fox News's momentum, CNN, whose financial figures are combined with Headline News, still had
the largest revenues
L MSNBC, meanwhile, was projected to generate meaningful profits for the first time
While the numbers are impressive particularly Fox News's financial milestones they do not come without
questions First, Fox News was expected to overtake CNN in profits in 2005 as well, but fell short, so the accuracy
of projections remains a question
1
The second is more long-term With all channels losing audience in 2006, has
the cable industry as a whole beyond just news begun a downward curve?
The number of cable households that are subscribers has barely increased in years, inching just 1% or so every
year in the last five
2
With no new audience, advertisers aren't paying what they used to Cable networks are no
longer able to get the significantly higher rates they are accustomed to, and ended up with only a 2% gain in the
2006 advertising upfront period
3
n addition, the slowdown in advertising revenue and growth means each
network or channel spends more on self-promotion to maintain its position
4
So far, the industry has stayed ahead of those downturns and convinced analysts it can weather the storm
According to projections for 2005-2010, basic cable (beyond just the news channels) will see a 78% growth in
revenues despite the economies of scale and leveling-off of subscribers
5
The cable news channels have been
faring equally well in projections
/rofits
By the bottom-line measure, profits, cable news is doing well indeed, and analysts see more of the same in the
immediate future
Kagan Research, the media research firm, projected that the four cable news channels would earn $699 million in
pre-tax profits in 2006 That would represent a jump of 32% from 2005, when they generated $529 million
664
Fox News was projected to become the most profitable channel, overtaking CNN for the first time. Kagan
expected Fox News's operating profits to grow more than 30%, to $326 million, from $244 million in 2005.
CNN, whose figures include Headline News, was projected to see a growth of almost 14%, to $310 million from
$272 million in 2005.
While MSNBC isn't anywhere near the level of the other two channels, its estimates continue to be optimistic.
Kagan expected profits at MSNBC to rise to $64 million in 2006 a leap of almost 400% from the $13 million it
made the previous year, and a sign that the news channel will, at long last, become a contributor of some value to
NBC television's bottom line. One caveat is that MSNBC has fallen short of projections before.
0able *e$s /rofitability
1997 - 2006, by Channel
1997 1998 1999 2000
2001
2002 Year
2003 2004
[]CNN [J
Fox j~J
MSNBC
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter Kagan nc.
Design Your Own Chart
One significant trend that emerges from those numbers is that Fox News has been steadily narrowing the gap in
profits with CNN every year, and at a much faster rate than analysts projected. n 2004, Fox News's profits had
665
been projected to be $97 million behind CNN's, and in 2005 some $56 million behind. Actual figures show the gap
was $58 million in 2004 and $28 million in 2005.
Thus, even if the gains in 2006 are more modest than projected, Fox News has achieved in ten years what it took
CNN 25 years to accomplish.
t should be emphasized, again, that financial data for 2006 are estimated or projected, since actual annual
figures for a calendar year come out six months later. Comparing actual 2005 figures against projections (in last
year's Annual Report) shows how far off the mark projections can be.
Kagan Research's projections for profits are a case in point. Fox News made about $4 million less than projected
($244 million rather than $248 million), a slight variation. MSNBC, in contrast, made only half of what analysts
expected it to $13 million, not the projected $27 million. CNN's actual earnings fell short by about $30 million of
what it was projected to make a profit of $272 million, not the projected $304 million.
evenues
One reason for Fox News's strength is that in tandem with profits, revenues are also rising rapidly. According to
the annual profiles released by Kagan in July 2006, Fox News's revenues were projected to grow 23.4%, nearly
identical to the 23% of 2005. That is nearly triple the projected revenue growth at CNN. n dollars that would come
to $754 million, up from $610 million in 2005.
CNN and Headline News, on the other hand, continue to bring in the highest revenues in cable news, but the
growth in recent years has slowed to single digits.
6
Kagan's projections for CNN include both CNN and CNN
Headline News because they are sold as a package to advertisers and distributors. They do not include the
revenues CNN earns from its other operations, such as CNN Radio, CNN nternational or NewsSource, its
subscription service that provides newsfeeds to local stations.
7
The two channels were projected to bring in $985 million in total revenue in 2006, a 7.6% increase over the
previous year's $915 million (a 9% increase over the year before that).
MSNBC, meanwhile, continued to lag well behind the other two channels in financial performance. Kagan
Research projected MSNBC would take in $269 million in revenues in 2006, a 7% jump over the previous year. (n
2005, incidentally, its revenues fell short of projections: $251 million against a projection of $261 million).
One can also get a sense of the accuracy of projections for revenues from the actual results of 2005.
0able *e$s evenues
2003 vs. 2002. in F 'illions
2003
/roGecte!
2003 actual
="roGection vs. actual>
2002 "roGecte!
0** ;6;.2 983.2 =H76> 9;3.7
)o& *e$s 28:.; 280.; =4:> 63:
%S*B0 228.7 238.: =49.9> 22;.;
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of JupiterKagan nc.
Seen against projections, CNN fared better than analysts expected. Fox News, on the other hand, falling short by
about $4 million, and MSNBC's were about $10 million lower than projected.
evenue Strea's
666
To understand all this, it is important to recognize how cable economics work. Unlike broadcast television, which
depends entirely on advertising, cable news has two revenue sources of basically equal weight subscriber
fees, paid through the cable systems, and ad revenues. That is why cable companies can make substantial
revenue and profit with much smaller audiences than broadcasters.
A breakdown of the two tells the story of where cable news' economics are headed.
&icense Fee or #u'scri'er Re%enues
The less obvious revenue stream in cable, license fees, is the money paid by the cable systems to carry the
channel. These are long-term deals negotiated in advance on a per-subscriber basis irrespective of how many
subscribers actually end up watching the channel. f a cable company enlarges its audience, it can renegotiate
those license fees upward when contracts come up for renewal.
The year 2006 marked the 10th anniversary of Fox News and the beginning of its process of renewing license-fee
contracts. When the channel launched in 1996, many of the 10-year contracts it signed gave the channel 25 cents
for each subscriber, roughly half what CNN makes.
All through 2005 and 2006, Fox News executives were quoted as saying they would like a revised rate of $1 a
subscriber an unheard-of increase in fees in the industry. While analysts believed that such a hike was
unrealistic, Fox News executives used the channel's Nielsen performance in arguing for it.
Their confidence has borne fruit. Fox News managed to triple its current fees in the first of its renewal deals, with
Cablevision, currently the sixth-largest cable operator in the U.S. After much speculation in trade magazines,
8
the
two sides agreed on a rate upwards of 75 cents per subscriber in October 2006, according to Broadcasting &
Cable.
9
Their new contracts are five-year deals( nitial media reports said that Fox News was negotiating for cable
systems to carry both the news channel and its proposed new business channel (see News nvestment). There
was also talk of retransmission fees for the Fox broadcast network. Eventually, however, trade magazines
reported that the final deals did not include carrying the business channel or the retransmission fees.
10
The new rate makes Fox News one of the top five most expensive cable networks in terms of license-fees. At the
top is ESPN, which charges $2.96 per subscriber per month, followed by TNT at 89 cents, Disney Channel at 79
cents, Fox News and then USA at 60 cents. CNN currently gets 44 cents.
11
The Merrill Lynch analyst Jessica Reif Cohen, who had expected Fox News to get 50 cents a subscriber,
estimated that the new rates could give Fox News $2.4 billion in affiliate revenue between 2007 and 2010. This
represented a jump of 23%, or $450 million, more than the projections that were made before the deal.
12
Kagan Research, whose 2007 projections were released before the deal and don't take into account the
renegotiations, estimated Fox News would earn 30 cents per subscriber in 2007 and earn subscriber revenues of
$330 million. But based on the new rates, there is bound to be a huge difference.
13
The October deal with Cablevision was followed by similar deals with DirecTV and National Cable Television
Cooperative (NCTC). t also set the stage for future renewals, which promise to be just as fiercely negotiated. Fox
News now has to deal with operators such as Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and Comcast. Peter
Chernin, President and COO of News Corp., was quoted in September 2006 as saying he expected tough,
tough, tough negotiations with cable operators.
0able *e$s %onthly evenues /er Subscriber
1997 - 2006, by Channel
66-
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter Kagan nc.
ndeed, the Fox News deal, to some degree, highlights the love-hate relationship between cable operators and
cable channels. Such negotiations over license fees and contracts have become increasingly combative.
Operators argue that while news channels are ubiquitous in cable, they are actually watched by relatively few of the
subscribers and that with their audiences now declining, Fox News doesn't warrant the kind of license fees it is
asking for.
Another consequence of the deals is likely to be a re-enactment of the CNN vs. Fox News rivalry on the economic
front. CNN, losing audience to Fox News the past six years, could face some stiff resistance from cable operators
when their current deals expire, especially because the operators are resigning themselves to the huge increases
they will have to pay Fox News.
0able *e$s evenues @ -&"enses
2006
66%
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter Kagan nc.
Design Your Own Chart
Kagan estimates CNN
will take in $515 million
in subscriber revenues
in 2007, at its current
rate of 45 cents for
each subscriber. That
would be an increase
of $31 million over its
projected 2006
revenues of $484
million.
MSNBC suffers from
both the lowest
subscriber rate and
the fewest
subscribers. At a rate
of 15 cents apiece, it is
projected to earn $162
million in 2007, up
from the $152 million it
was expected to earn
in 2006.
Ad%ertising Re%enues
The second revenue
stream for cable news,
of course, is
advertising. Advertising
revenues in cable are
based on whether the
channel appeals to a
higher-income target
audience.
The appeal of cable
news has always been
that it attracts well-
educated, relatively
affluent viewers, an
audience with
purchasing power that
advertisers want. This
niche positioning
largely determines
advertising rates. And
while their rates can't
be as high as those of
the broadcast
networks because of
smaller audience than
broadcast networks,
cable news channels
compete well on rates
with general-interest
cable channels such
as sports or
entertainment, which boast much larger audiences.
So how did the channels fare in 2006? Fox News
was expected to reach another fiscal milestone. f
estimates prove accurate, it will have overtaken
CNN for the first time in advertising revenue.
According to projections by Kagan Research,
Fox News was expected to take in $454
million in 2006 from advertising. That would
top CNN's projected $424 million (and far
exceed MSNBC's $114 million).
t would also represent a 31% growth over 2005,
more than twice that of CNN (13%) and more than
four times that of MSNBC (7%).
*et A! evenue of 0able 0hannels
2000 4 2002. in F 'illions
2000 2008 2002 2007 200:
200
3
est.
66'
0**
:82.
;
38.2
87;.
::3.9
39.9
883.6
M M M 77:.9
)o& *e$s
%S*B0
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of JupiterKagan nc.
Note: Net Ad Revenue refers to revenue generated after
discounting the commission that goes to ad agencies.
There is however, at least one big caveat.
Projections for 2005 indicated a similar leap for Fox
News that never materialized. n that year, Fox
News was expected to take in $336 million,
scraping past CNN's expected $335 million. But
actual results showed that CNN did better than
expected and bought in $376 million in 2005. Even
though Fox News took in $345 million, it remained
almost $31 million shy of CNN.
What's more, other analysts think Kagan's
projections are overly optimistic for Fox News.
According to a report by Jessica Reif Cohen of
Merrill Lynch in September 2006, Fox News's ad
revenue for 2006 was expected to be $421 million
and to increase at an average of just 4% a year in
the next four years.
14
How is it that CNN can charge ad rates close to
those of Fox News with a much smaller audience?
The answer, as we have noted in earlier reports, is
that Madison Avenue apparently continues to covet
CNN's audience type.
CNN's historic lead in advertising revenue can be
attributed to both
familiarity and
performance. t
commands a
substantial cumulative
audience and remains
the channel of choice
for breaking news
events, making it
appealing for
advertisers who want
a guaranteed
audience.
How long that might
continue is an open
question.
)ootnotes
1. While various
sources offer
projections and
estimates of economic
data on the cable
television industry, the
differences among
them aren't particularly
large. As a
consequence, we
generally cite one
source here for the
sake of clarity, one
consistent yardstick
rather than many
variations on the same
theme. On those
occasions where
estimates vary widely,
we occasionally offer
an alternative. To
arrive at an accurate
trend over time, we
have relied on data
from Kagan Research
in this report. Kagan is
one of the most
experienced media
and communications
analysis and research
firms in the U.S.,
widely cited in the
general press and in
trade publications.
Kagan provides us
economic profiles
breaking out the cable
news channels from
the overall company
profiles.
2. See the 2006 Cable Audience section
3. Upfront is an advertising term for an early
buying season (the upfront season) when
advertisers purchase ad spots on TV shows for the
coming broadcast year. They buy the spots in bulk
to get lower rates and to ensure that their ads will
be seen by enough viewers. Rates for such spots
are calculated based on a show's average
audience and ratings.
4. John Higgins, Why the Cable Buzz is Gone,
Broadcasting & Cable, September 11, 2006
5. Kagan Research estimates in July 2006
indicated that basic cable TV revenue in 2010
would be $53.2 billion, up from $29.9 billion in
2005. Robert Marich, Profit Margins at Basic Cable
TV Nets still climbing Despite Growing Pains,
Kagan nsights Newsletter, Jupiter Research, July
11, 2006
6. By way of comparison, CNN's revenues in
2005 were $200 million more than those of Fox
News and $700 million more than MSNBC's.
-. Other CNN operations include CNN en
Espanol, CNN en Espanol Radio, CNN.com,
CNN Money.com, CNN Studentnews.com, CNN
Airport Network, CNN to go, and CNN Mobile.
(Source: Time Warner Web site).
6-0
%. Fox News put out a legal notice in September 2006 warning Cablevision customers they might lose the channel
in October because of contract complications. Rupert Murdoch made things personal when he was quoted in
trade magazines warning off Cablevision's head, Chuck Dolan.
'. John M. Higgins, Fox News Gets Big Hike in Cablevision Renewal, Broadcasting & Cable, October 16, 2006
10. Michael Learmonth & John Dempsey, Fox's Triple Play, Variety, October 16, 2006
11.Kagan Research; Also Michael Learmonth & John Dempsey, Fox's Triple Play, Variety, October 16, 2006
12. David Goetzl, Merrill Lynch: Fox, Cablevision Deal Means 25% Rev Jump for Net, MediaPost, October
18, 2006
13. The new subscriber fees, on the cable systems that have renewed their contracts with Fox News, are
effective starting the month they were reached (either October or December, 2006). Thus, their impact will not
really be visible until the 2007 fiscal year.
14. The report by Cohen predicts that Fox News's ad revenue would reach about $502 million in 2010,
an average increase of 4%. David Goetzl, Merrill Lynch: Fox, Cablevision Deal Means 25% Rev Jump for
Net, MediaPost, October 18, 2006.
<$nershi"
The basic ownership picture of Cable changed little in 2006. News Corp., the company managed and controlled
financially by Rupert Murdoch, owns Fox News. General Electric, the corporate conglomerate that owns NBC and
Vivendi Universal studios, owns MSNBC. CNN is a part of the Time Warner-AOL empire.
Below the surface, however, subtle changes tell a dynamic story. When it comes to management, MSNBC is the
channel gearing up for the most change in 2007. After some top-level changes in 2006, it is likely to see shake-
ups throughout the organization in 2007 as it moves facilities to New York near NBC News.
At Fox News, Rupert Murdoch celebrated the channel's 10th anniversary and strengthened his hold on the parent
company, News Corp. At CNN, Ted Turner did the opposite removing himself from the board of Time Warner
and breaking his ties with the news channel he created.
%S*B0
Cable's perennial third-placer finisher in 2006 saw three significant changes. With the departure of its co-owner,
Microsoft, NBC and its parent General Electric (GE) gained more freedom to make changes. GE then announced
a series of cuts and reshuffling throughout NBC and MSNBC, including closing down the news channel's New
Jersey headquarters and moving operations to NBC's Rockefeller Center offices in Manhattan. And MSNBC put
new personnel in charge of the news channel, which seems to have hit upon a new style and brand politics and
opinion.
All of that began at the end of 2005 when NBC Television took over sole charge of the channel after 10 years of
joint ownership with Microsoft. t was described as a move to revitalize the channel and align it more closely to
NBC News, according to NBC's president, Steve Capus.
That began to take shape in October 2006, when NBC Universal, the parent division of NBC television (which
includes both MSNBC and NBC News) announced what it labeled NBC 2.0 to assure future growth and to
exploit the opportunities of the changing media landscape.
6-1
The initiative coincided with the release of GE's third-quarter figures, where profits were lower than expected (6%
increase) partly because of NBC Universal's 10% drop in profits. That provided the context for what turned out to
be cuts mostly at NBC Universal. According to the company, the reductions would be shouldered by NBC U's key
profit center: news at its national broadcast and cable networks, and local owned-and-operated TV stations.
1
According to various media reports, the company planned to trim the news division budget through attrition,
buyouts, layoffs and the elimination of duplicate newsgathering processes. The official press statement said
management would be cutting about 700 jobs (5% of the total workforce) by 2007. But Capus said the cable
channel would not be targeted for heavy cuts.
One change that was clear was closer integration through physical proximity. As part of the 2.0 initiative, NBC
announced it would move MSNBC operations 600 personnel out of its Secaucus, N.J., headquarters and
shift it to New York (with NBC News) and Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (with CNBC). NBC said its aim was to create one
digital hub for news, and pool reporters from all the various news businesses.
2
t was also, however, one way to
save money.
The changes followed a reshuffle in top management earlier in the year. n May 2006, Rick Kaplan, the veteran
from ABC and CNN, stepped down as president and general manager of MSNBC less than three years after
taking over the struggling channel. Media critics attributed Kaplan's exit to his lack of programming success,
especially with the shows he created (see News nvestment). He was, however, credited with building morale
within the channel after an era of program shuffling and newsroom turmoil under his predecessor, Erik Sorenson,
and with creating a better relationship with NBC News.
Kaplan was succeeded by Phil Griffin, who was appointed President of MSNBC in June 2006. Griffin is a
successful newsroom veteran at both NBC and MSNBC, where he was most recently senior vice president of
prime-time programming. He also continues to oversee NBC's morning Today Show, which he has led since
1995.
Griffin in turn named Dan Abrams, the channel's legal-affairs reporter and anchor, as general manager, though
Abrams remains a legal correspondent and will contribute to both NBC and MSNBC. His promotion was a
surprise not just because he had no management experience, but because cable networks rarely put news
anchors in their executive ranks. For one thing, TV anchors historically have more job security than general
managers and vice presidents. Media speculation was that the appointment was a result of his familiarity with
both the channel and with Steve Capus and Phil Griffin. All three have been involved with MSNBC from the early
years. Abrams has been with MSNBC since 1997 and has been the anchor of The Abrams Report since 2001.
Capus was executive producer of an MSNBC prime-time newscast in 1999 and in charge of daytime
programming when the channel launched in 1996.
According to MSNBC, Abrams's immediate goals were to build on the success of the channel's two most popular
shows, Keith Olbermann's Countdown and Chris Matthews's Hardball (see more in Audience).
By fall, it was clear that meant trying to brand MSNBC around politics, and with a lineup that was now heavily
influenced by opinion and talk in prime time (Tucker Carlson, Matthews, Olbermann, and Joe Scarborough are all
political talk). With a pivotal mid-term election, the strategy seemed to work, especially in prime time (see
Audience). The press began to write promisingly of the idea. As Variety put it, politics might help bring cultural
relevance to a channel that has long struggled to find its niche.
3
n part, the move suggests that Abrams and Griffin recognize the growing difficulty of building a news channel
around breaking headlines, or what we have called news on demand. Creating a brand around a subject area, the
way ESPN does around sports, or CNBC does around business, is a logical alternative. CNN may also have
helped create the opportunity. ts changes, such as cancelling its nside Politics program and to a lesser extent its
cancellation of Crossfire, moved it more explicitly away from politics. CNN certainly devotes time to the subject,
but its franchise is less defined. Fox News's viewership in this area, in turn, is decidedly more conservative,
potentially leaving another niche.
6-2
As 2007 began, the strategy still appeared to be working. n January, MSNBC drew in 525,000 viewers in prime
time, an impressive increase of nearly 53% over its numbers for the same month last year (344,000). That was far
better than the gains made by CNN (13%) or Fox News (9%).
*e$s 0or". an! the )o& *e$s 0hannel
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corp., had reason to toast Fox News and its chairman, Roger Ailes, during the
10th-anniversary celebrations of the channel in October, 2006. The Fox News channel continued to be a News
Corp. star performer, not just in its category (cable networks) but among all the U.S. operations of the media
conglomerate (see Audience and Economics).
4
Fox News turned 10 on October 7, 2006. Proving forecasters and skeptics wrong, the network overtook CNN
the biggest name in cable news at the time in audience within six years of its launch.
When Murdoch created the news network in 1996, he marketed it as an antidote to what he termed the left-wing
news media. n an interview with the Financial Times in October 2006, Murdoch reflected on the channel's
beginnings and said Fox News had changed the political equation in country, because it has given room to both
sides, whereas only one side had it before.
5
Murdoch hired Ailes, former president of CNBC and a former political
strategist for the Republicans, to head the network. Ailes hasn't just changed the style of TV news presentation,
he has challenged existing TV news agendas.
Undoubtedly the force behind the channel, he brought with him not just a talent for marketing and political hard-
sell, but knowledge of television and a no-nonsense style of leadership. He combined these with the belief, more
hinted at than explicit in Fox News marketing, that American viewers would empathize with the idea that
mainstream media were tilted to the left. His slogans, Fair and balanced, and We Report, You Decide, implied
that those were not qualities available in other media.
Ailes also did something else. He succeeded (where CNN rarely did) in creating distinct programs that people
would tune in to so-called appointment programming in TV language. Bill O'Reilly's program was distinct from
Hannity and Colmes, which in turn was different from Brit Hume's, and that in turn from Neil Cavuto's. There were
differences in style and tone, and different anchors played, in a sense, different characters.
There was also a new look with graphics, sound, editing, pacing and more. The combination of a polished look,
populist language and opinion-laden journalism has hit the target with many viewers.
Even a former president of MSNBC, Erik Sorenson, admits, Fox News convinced millions. that Fox's reporting
was indeed fair and balanced, when compared with CNN and broadcast news.
The channel took off in 2001, after the September 11 terrorist attacks and during the war in Afghanistan, when it
took on an outspoken pro-American posture. ts position which implied that the other news channels weren't
pro-American created a strong and loyal viewer base.
The channel's rise has also been tied to news-watching's becoming partisan. According to the latest Pew survey
on news consumption, Republicans are increasingly watching Fox News, while Democrats stick to CNN.
6
Despite being the biggest cable news channel in the U.S. and part of one the largest media conglomerates in the
world, News Corp., Fox News has succeeded by playing off the impression that it is a lonely young upstart
challenging the rest of the colossal, liberally biased media.
When asked directly, the network vigorously denies any charges of political or ideological bias. t has had to
constantly defend its credibility as a straight news source. A recent example occurred in an October 2006
interview on Fox News Sunday with Bill Clinton when he flared up and accused the host, Chris Wallace, of
doing a conservative hit job on me.
Fox News executives say their channel succeeds and gets attacked only because it offers a different
perspective. Roger Ailes was quoted in USA Today as saying that the liberals hate (Fox News) for coming on the
6-3
scene and. making the people look at both sides of issues.
7
Shepard Smith, one of Fox News' marquee news
anchors, argues that critics need to recognize that the channel offers two kinds of shows. On one hand are the talk
shows that reflect their hosts' views, he says, but all the others, including the two news reports he anchors, are
straight news reporting. Ailes concurred, arguing that Fox News's critics mash (opinion shows and the
journalism) together and act as if Sean Hannity is doing the evening news, which is just nonsense.
8
This report is not an attempt to settle the issue of Fox News's fairness and balance, but to assess its position in
the marketplace at its 10-year mark. Whatever its critics might argue, there is no denying that Fox News has
made newsrooms re-think their business, both in format and content. The success of Fox News's talk shows has
led to opinion journalism's becoming almost staple fare in the TV news business; notable competitors with Fox
being Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and Lou Dobbs on CNN. Olbermann's recent ratings climb has coincided,
indeed, with his on-air crusade against the Fox News talk-show host Bill O'Reilly.
The success of Fox News has also sparked off debates on whether objective news is even relevant in a time
when ordinary Americans give vent to their opinions through the nternet and blogs.
But while his American news channel in 2006 gave him few worries, Murdoch had a close shave with his stake in
the parent News Corp. itself. For much of the year, Murdoch was locked in a battle with Liberty Media Group's
chairman, John Malone, over the controlling interest in News Corp. The battle was finally settled in December
when News Corp. reached an agreement with Liberty Media to ensure Murdoch's control of his company.
9
Liberty and News Corp. were equally stubborn negotiators, and, as analysts had predicted, they compromised.
The final deal, which will come into effect later in 2007, stipulates that Liberty will acquire News Corp.'s 39% stake
in DirecTV, three regional Fox sports networks and $550 million in cash.
10
n return, Malone will retire his 19%
voting stake in News Corp. by selling it back to the company. Malone's stake has roughly the same value as the
DirecTV stake and other assets he gets from Murdoch, making the deal an even swap.
The final deal also raises the Murdoch family share in News Corp. to about 40%, making it the biggest voting
stake in the company.
11
Murdoch and his two sons currently own about 30% of News Corp., giving them managing
control of the company, and it is widely reported that Murdoch hopes to keep control within the family.
12
So it was no
surprise he reacted strongly when that control was threatened.
The fact that News Corp.'s share price was up and earnings rose 19% in the fourth quarter of 2006 would
undoubtedly have bolstered Murdoch's claim that he knew best how to run the company.
13
n addition, he had the
public support of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who owns a 5.7% stake in News Corp. The measure
helped protect the Murdoch family's control of News Corp. until a deal was reached, and also helped them avoid a
lengthy battle in court, where the dispute would have ended up if the deal was not agreed on in time.
Another, smaller footnote regarding Murdoch's activities in the U.S. was the setback his publishing company,
Harper Collins, experienced in December 2006. t attempted to publish and market a book entitled f Did t by the
ex-football player O. J. Simpson, acquitted in 1995 of killing his wife. The plan was harshly criticized and the book
had to be withdrawn.
f Did t was heavily marketed before is scheduled launch, including promotion of an interview to be aired on
Fox TV stations with Simpson himself on November 27 and November 29, 2006 two of the final three nights of
the November sweeps, when ratings are watched closely to set local advertising rates. The interview and the
book faced immediate outrage, both among the public and in the media (including local Fox affiliate stations and
Fox News's Bill O'Reilly). Murdoch had to personally step up to say the company had made a mistake and issue an
apology.
Ti'e Warner 0o'"any @ 0**
The year 2006 saw CNN's founder and Time Warner's most prominent personality, Ted Turner, break his final ties
with the company.
6-4
n February 2006, Turner announced he would not be standing for re-election to Time Warner's board of directors
at the annual meeting; he officially said goodbye in May 2006. He remains Time Warner's largest individual
shareholder, with 33 million shares, but has been cutting back on his holdings.
Turner's decision to step away comes 11 years after he sold his cable company, Turner Broadcasting Networks,
to Time Warner, and 26 years after he helped launch CNN.
14
His effective departure from operational involvement,
however, had come earlier, with the merger in 2000 of Time Warner and AOL. Now, his departure from even the
board of Time Warner marks the formal end to a career at the Turner companies in which he stands as a pioneer
in the latter half of the 20 th century in televised American news, entertainment and sports.
Tuner was the first to see the potential of cable as a viable alternative to the broadcast networks and to make the
potential a reality both technically and economically. Leo Hindrey, former head of TC cable, lauded him as a
visionary. Without CNN, the cable industry would never have evolved as it did. The rest of us were putting in
wires. Ted gave us something to watch.
He is credited with pioneering the use of satellites to distribute ad-supported cable channels nationwide, which had
never been tried before. Turner was also responsible for introducing the dual revenue streams for cable:
advertising revenues and, particular to cable, subscriber revenues from cable distributors (see Economics).
And while he may not have grasped the potential of the nternet, he did introduce television viewers to an on-
demand media world when he launched the 24-hour news channel CNN, effectively weaning viewers away from
the notion of fixed schedules for news.
Ted Turner had long played a prominent role in Time Warner's decisions, but in recent years had complained that
he was being sidelined. n a shakeup in 2000, just before Time Warner merged with AOL, the CEO at the time,
Gerald Levin, had relieved Turner of most of his responsibilities.
He became increasingly vocal in his disagreements with Time Warner, and was even quoted as saying his
decision to merge with the conglomerate was the biggest mistake of my life. His most recent decision follows his
resignation as vice-chairman of Time Warner in 2003, a post he had held since the 1996 merger.
15
)ootnotes
1. Anne Becker, NBC U: More with Less, Broadcasting & Cable, October 23, 2006; Online at:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6383679.html
2. NBC News, the network's local owned & operated news stations, MSNBC TV, CNBC, Telemundo and
Telemundo affiliates.
3. Michael Learmonth, MSNBC Seizes Election Mandate: Cable News Channel Rides Political Wave, Variety,
November 19, 2006. See also Howard Kurtz, For MSNBC, Time to Get Political, Washington Post, November
20, 2006.
4. News Corp. doesn't report financial results for the Fox News Channel, but says it is one of the biggest parts of
the fast-growing cable-networks division. The division reported operating income of $864 million for the year
ended June 30. Julia Angwin, After Riding High With Fox News, Murdoch Aide Has Harder Slog, Wall Street
Journal, October 3 2006.
5. nterview Transcript: Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, Financial Times, October 6, 2006; online at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5b77af92-548c-11db-901f-0000779e2340.html
6. Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,
July 30, 2006; online at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageD=1067
-. Peter Johnson, 10 Years Later, Fox News Turns up the Cable Volume, USA Today, October 1, 2006
6-5
8. Matea Gold, Up Next, Wrangling Respect, Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2006
9. News, Liberty May Trade Stakes, Los Angeles Times, December 7, 2006
10.Richard Siklos, Murdoch and Malone Find a Way to Make Up, New York Times, December 7, 2006
11.Julia Angwin, News Corp. is Poised to Regain Liberty's Stake, Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2006
12.Rupert Murdoch has two sons. James Murdoch, the younger son, is currently CEO of BSB, their British
broadcasting group. Lachlan Murdoch, the older one, was made deputy CEO of News Corp. in 2000 in what was
seen as a move to groom him to take over his father's role. n 2006, however, he suddenly quit his executive role
in the company and moved to Australia. Murdoch's succession is now open to speculation.
13.Seth Sutel, News Corp. 4th-quarter earnings rise 19% to $852 million on radio sale, cable gains, AP, August
8, 2006
14.Time Warner was created in 1990 by the merger of Time nc. and Warner Communications. That company
acquired Ted Turner's Turner Broadcasting System in 1996. t merged with AOL in 2000, and was known as Time
Warner-AOL until 2003.
15.Turner now concentrates on his philanthropic works, such as the UN Foundation and Nuclear Threat nitiative.
*e$s Invest'ent
As media platforms proliferate and evolve, cable news networks are faced with growing pressures to stay
relevant, and have to go beyond just producing TV journalism Not only must they improve their existing content,
but like other media they must increasingly compete with other kinds of journalism, online, on mobile devices, with
text, audio and more Cable's great historic advantage, immediacy, is no longer the province of cable alone
Against that background, these developments stood out in 2006
L Fox News appears to be continuing to increase investment in its news operation at a higher rate than its
competitors
L CNN, along with its sister channel, CNN Headline News, after scaling back earlier in the decade, is
increasing its investment, too, but more slowly
1
L MSNBC, which has been cutting back on its operations for the previous two years, was projected to see
expenses grow in 2006, but that was before the announcement by GE of its new NBC 2 0 program, which
is tallying up major cutbacks throughout the news division
L t is less clear how much of each channel's investment is going into reporters and producers
newsgathering boots on the ground and how much is going elsewhere
L The trend toward opinion journalism, one of the elements of Fox News's success, appears to be
strengthening among its rivals CNN, CNN Headline News and MSNBC all invested more heavily in
promoting opinionated personalities
nvesting Bac( an! /re"aring for the )uture
There are two ways of analyzing a station's financial investment in the news product The first is to look at all the
money a company spends to operate a station That amount, total expenses, includes salaries and capital
expenditures on technology and machinery, as well as the specific costs attributed to different programs
The second way of looking at expenses is to identify the part attributable to specific programs, termed
programming expenses That includes the costs of either buying material from others or producing it in-house This
second category deserves a closer look
6-6
Programming Expenses
Projections for 2006 indicate that the three main news channels will have spent up to two-thirds of their overall
expenses on news programming. At MSNBC, programming was expected to make up 74% of all expenses. Fox
News's share was 63%, while CNN was expected to invest about 54% of its expenses in programming. The
numbers represent a slight growth for MSNBC and Fox News from the previous year and a decline for CNN.
2
While CNN devotes the smallest percent of its total expenses to the newsroom, it is still at the top when it comes to
sheer dollars. ts projected newsroom spending for 2006 was $346 million, up from $330 million in 2005 (a 5.7%
increase). One reason the number is higher is it reflects both CNN and CNN Headline News.
Fox News was expected to spend roughly $75 million less than CNN in 2006 ($271 million in programming
expenses), but that represented almost a 23% rise from $221 million in 2005, the biggest percentage growth
among all the three competitors.
MSNBC, meanwhile, was projected to spend by far the least, $153 million in 2006, a 10% rise from the previous
year ($139 million).
Those projections, however, were released by Kagan Research before the changes in ownership and
restructuring at NBC Television (see Ownership). Actual figures might not reflect the optimistic projections. f
media reports are to be believed, the shakeups in NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC newsgathering resources are
bound to mean some cutbacks in programming costs.
0able *e$s /rogra''ing -&"enses
1997 - 2006, by Channel
Year
rjCMM
[J Fox
Q MSNBC
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of Jupiter-Kagan nc. CNN figures include CNN Headline News
Total Expenses
When other expenses are added in (such as salaries and capital expenditures on equipment and facilities), Fox
News is expected to increase expenses nearly 17% (compared with the 23% increase in revenues). That is about
the same growth in expenses the channel saw in 2005 (16%). n dollar terms, Fox News is expected to spend
$428 million in 2006, up from $367 million in 2005.
6--
CNN's total expenses were projected to increase almost 5%, to $675 million, up from $643 million the year before,
on revenue growth of 8%. That means CNN will spend about 69% of its revenues to cover expenses, as opposed
to 70% in 2005. The share it puts back is more than Fox News but much less than MSNBC.
MSNBC, meanwhile, seemed to be cutting costs in 2006. f the projections are correct, MSNBC would have cut
expenses by 14% during the year on revenue growth of 7%. MSNBC has been cutting costs for the last three
years, according to the data, but these cutbacks are significantly higher. The channel had cutbacks of 3% in 2005
and 5% in 2004.
Given its lower base, expenses eat up a considerably higher percentage of MSNBC's revenue. n 2006, MSNBC
was expected to have spent a total of $205 million, about three-fourths (76%) of its total revenue.
3
0able *e$s -&"enses
2003 vs. 2002. in F 'illions
2003
/roGecte!
2003 actual
="roGection vs. actual>
2002 "roGecte!
0** 36:.7 2:7 =H2;.6> 263.2
)o& *e$s 722.2 722.2 =0> :2;
%S*B0 27:.2 27;.; =H:.2> 203.2
Source: Kagan Research, LLC, a division of JupiterKagan nc.
How do those expenses play out on the ground in terms of newsroom sizes and operations? Are those elements
growing, or is the money going into promotion, salaries for hosts, sets, and show costs? That is harder to know,
and increasingly the news channels are not saying.
CNN is clearly the largest operation, with 11 domestic bureaus and 26 international ones. Those numbers reflect no
change from a year earlier. But finding much more than that, for the moment, is difficult. The network did not
provide its staffing numbers, but for the latest year for which we have data, 2004, it had roughly 4,000 employees
(see our 2005 Annual Report).
Fox News appears to be building. The channel ended 2006 with 10 bureaus in the U.S. and 6 abroad, according to
the Los Angeles Times reporter Matea Gold.
4
The number overseas doubled from the three it had at the end of
2005, in London, Paris and Jerusalem. Channel executives were also reported to be planning to build their
international coverage by partnering with other international news organizations or broadening their pool of
freelancers.
5
But getting a full scope of Fox's investment is also difficult. Like CNN, the channel did not offer
staffing numbers, but for the latest year for which we have estimates, 2004, it had 1,250 employees in its news
operation.
At MSNBC, the trend lines are probably not promising. With its parent company cutting back, and the network still
struggling to build audience, it had begun cutting costs at least two years earlier. MSNBC relies on NBC News'
bureaus domestically and worldwide. Those include 15 international bureaus and seven bureaus in the U.S. As of
December 2006, it had a staff of 600 dedicated to the cable operation, according to its PR department.
6
But the
news channel can also turn to NBC personnel for content.
0hanges on the Air an! Behin! the Scenes
The declines in viewership, slowdown in growth of profits and growing competition from new media all represent
challenges for cable news. One way the industry appears to be responding is by changing programming line-ups.
All three channels fiddled with their programs and on-air faces in 2006. The impact of these changes, though,
remains to be seen.
C
6-%
n the search for a successful programming strategy to counter Fox News, CNN made numerous changes in
2006.
Those began first thing in the morning, a time slot where CNN lags behind both Fox News and the broadcast
network morning shows. CNN's American Morning became an hour shorter starting in 2007 (6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) just
a year after it had been expanded to four hours. That makes it the same length as Fox News's more popular Fox
& Friends. Trade magazines speculated that CNN may also hope to attract morning network TV viewers in the
wake of all the changes in the broadcast morning shows with the departure of Charles Gibson and Katie Couric to
evening news (see Network TV Audience).
n daytime between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. CNN merged its two programs, CNN Live Today and Live From, into
one long news block called CNN Newsroom. CNN's longtime anchor, Daryn Kagan, left the channel in September
2006. She was replaced by a new hire, Don Lemon, who began by hosting the afternoon leg of the show along
with Kagan's former co-anchor Kyra Phillips, who remains. Lemon had been a local TV anchor in Chicago.
n prime time, CNN continued to promote its two tent poles, the star anchor Anderson Cooper's Anderson Cooper
360, which starts at 10 p.m., and Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room, which runs from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Another
prominent personality getting increasing attention is CNN's Lou Dobbs, who hosts his one hour show at 6 p.m. as
a break in Blitzer's show. The rest of prime time is taken up by Paula Zahn Now (8 p.m.) and Larry King Live (9
p.m.)
Dobbs saw some notable ratings success in 2006 (see Audience). The surge came after Dobbs recast himself
from a traditional financial journalist into an economic populist crusading on such issues as exportation of jobs
and the decline of the middle class. The transformation has made Dobbs more an advocacy and opinion journalist
in the mold of Fox News's Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. And just as their shows have been the
only ones seeing growth when cable news over all is slowing down, Dobbs' numbers are also on the rise.
Dobbs, who has been with CNN since its inception (save for an interlude from 1999 to 2001) was an utterly
conventional financial reporter who did features on different companies and interviews with corporate chieftains.
His new show airs at 6 p.m. ET and begins CNN's evening programming. The hour-long show is spilt in two: The
first half hour contains domestic and international news, while the second is dominated by brands or special
segments on his pet issues. These segments, with names like Broken Borders or Exporting America, are
heavily promoted across CNN.
7
C $eadline e!s
One of the biggest questions facing the CNN news channels CNN U.S. and CNN Headline News is how they
can compete with the more opinion-filled prime-time competition and still hold on to their reputation as objective
news sources.
For CNN, one strategy has been to make Headline News a more personality-driven talk and opinion TV channel
in prime time. Originally designed as a 24 hour wheel format, where headlines were simply repeated every half
hour, the channel continued its efforts to create a more distinct identity for itself in 2006.
Ken Jautz, who is responsible for Headline News, told the New York Times that the channel was analogous to the
op-ed page, with the main CNN providing the rest of the more objective news pages.
That, at least in prime time, represents a remarkable transformation for Headline News. The name itself in the
evening is a holdover from another time, if not something of a misnomer. t is also, as noted in the Audience
section, a sign of how headlines, or news on demand, is no longer a franchise cable commands alone.
The shift from news to views saw Headline News investing in some changes to its lineup and promoting a host
of strong personalities. Chief among the channel's star names are the prime-time talk-show hosts Glenn Beck and
Nancy Grace, both controversial.
8
6-'
Beck, a conservative talk-radio host, joined Headline News in May 2006 with his own prime-time show (Glenn
Beck at 7 p.m. ET). Asserting that he is no journalist, Beck tends to takes radical points of view and claims to say
what others are feeling but afraid to say.
9
Equally brash, if not more so, is the other Headline News star, Nancy Grace. The former lawyer, who began the
Nancy Grace legal talk-show in 2005, is known for her personal and emotional involvement in the cases she airs.
n 2006, Grace's aggressiveness became even more controversial when one of her guests, Melinda Duckett,
committed suicide after Grace treated her as a potential suspect in the Ducketts' son's disappearance. n
November 2006, the woman's family sued Grace.
10
But prime time is not the only slot on which CNN Headline News executives are concentrating. Noticing the
attention that the morning anchor Robin Meade was getting, they re-branded the program around her calling it
Robin & Company in October 2005, making it more conversational and less straight news. One year later, the
strategy seemed to have paid off with higher ratings and positive audience feedback.
As for its lineup changes, it eliminated its 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. newscast, citing a need to bolster their editorial
services elsewhere. To fill the gap, the earlier newscasts were increased by an hour each. n prime time, it
extended its star weeknight shows to the weekends. Those include Prime News with Erica Hill, Showbiz Tonight
and Nancy Grace.
"#BC
The fate of MSNBC was the subject of much speculation throughout 2006. n October, NBC Television announced
a major new initiative that implied that the channel would have to shift its current headquarters and combine its
newsgathering resources with that of the sister concerns NBC News and CNBC. The changes to its staff weren't
clear yet, but the cuts at the NBC News division were an ominous sign for the newsgathering resources at
MSNBC, which had already been cutting expenses for three years, (See Ownership and Network TV.)
Even before the NBC restructuring was announced in October 2006, MSNBC was making a significant number of
programming changes.
n July 2006, soon after the resignation of its president and GM, Rick Kaplan, it cancelled the legal show he had
approved, Rita Cosby: Live and Direct (only a few months after giving it a prime-time slot). MSNBC also saw the
end of two other shows that Kaplan had approved, Connected Coast to Coast and Weekends with Maury and
Connie. The latter was hosted by the NBC talk-show veteran Maury Povich and his wife, the former news anchor
Connie Chung. Kaplan's only remaining creation is the Tucker Carlson Show, which was re-branded Tucker and re-
scheduled to an late afternoon slot, but it has been a ratings disappointment. According to Nielsen data, Carlson's
show saw a 19% drop in viewers in November 2006 compared to November 2005.
The star personalities on MSNBC instead have turned out to be Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.
Reminiscent of Fox News' opinion-laden prime time fare, Olbermann's opinionated, increasingly anti-
administration 8 p.m. talk show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, has become a surprise ratings success in
recent months (see Audience). ndeed, in February 2007, MSNBC renewed his contract for four more years.
11
Before he became a news talker, Olbermann was a sports broadcaster, notably with ESPN. His sharp
commentary and writing as a co-anchor of SportsCenter became a trademark for the channel, and he continues to
appear on ESPN Radio.
12
He joined MSNBC in 1997 to host The Big Show, which became The White House in
Crisis during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998, but quit a year later. He rejoined the channel in March 2003
with the current show. Launched to cover the raq War, it was originally called Countdown: raq, but is now a mix
of the top headlines (counted down to reach a big story last, though in reality the top stories of the day come
first) accompanied by his comments and a number of quick recurring segments such as Oddball or Top 3
Newsmakers.
6%0
The show has been gaining viewers since August 2003, even though it competes at that hour with Fox News's
The O'Reilly Factor, the most-watched cable news show. ndeed, one of the factors for Olbermann's success has
been his on-air feud with O'Reilly. Openly critical of the Fox News host, Olbermann has frequently named him the
worst person in the world (one the recurring segments of his show) that has consequently made Olbermann a
hero to liberals and anathema to conservatives.
13
More notably, it has led to both media coverage and higher
ratings.
Olbermann is one of a growing number of cable news personalities bringing their opinions to news channels and
succeeding. After years of ratings troubles, MSNBC couldn't be happier. According to Dan Abrams, Keith
Olbermann is the right person at the right time, and doing it the right way."
14
Fox e!s
One core of Fox News' success, and one CNN and MSNBC are beginning to emulate, is that it has created
distinct programs, usually built around opinionated personalities. And furthermore, it has managed to do that at
different points in the day.
That success begins in the morning. From 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. ET, the channel airs Fox & Friends, the highest-rated
cable morning show. According to some trade magazines, the program is even poised to take on the network
broadcast shows.
15
Built as a talk show with three hosts, the show's casual and conversational approach is
peppered with hard-news updates, personal opinion and ideological edge. The show saw no changes in format,
though one of its anchors, E.D. Hill, was replaced by Gretchen Carlson in September 2006.
n February 2007, the channel re-branded its 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. block American Newsroom, hosted by Bill Hemmer
and Megyn Kelly. During the earlier programming changes in September 2006, Hemmer was made the anchor of
a one-hour show at noon that used the Fox News Web site as a hook. Fox Online was a recap of the day's top
news and picked up stories that are most popular on the Web site for discussion. The time slot is now taken up by
its predecessor, Fox News Live, which was extended by an hour; it now runs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and is
anchored by E. D. Hill.
September was also when the anchor Martha MacCallum was promoted to be a host of her own show, The Live
Desk with Martha MacCallum, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. The channel named Jane Skinner anchor of the weekday
show Fox News Live, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., to replace MacCallum.
Another prominent change was the elimination of its Dayside program in September. The show's anchors, Mike
Jerrick and Juliet Huddy, headed to a network morning program for Fox's broadcast stations (see Local TV
Audience).
16
The Fox Business Channel
The biggest question about Fox News in 2007 is its business channel, though its existence is now more a
question of when, not if.
n February 2007, Murdoch announced that the Fox Business Channel would launch by the fourth quarter of the
year.
Getting enough subscribers for the new channel to make financial sense was one of the biggest obstacles to its
launch. t managed to reach its goal of 30 million subscribers by the end of 2006, after securing carriage or
becoming a part of the channel line-up on the Comcast, Time Warner and Charter cable systems and on the
DirecTV satellite network.
17
The first big sign of News Corp.'s investment in the new venture was its inclusion in Fox News's license-fee
contract renegotiations in October 2006 (see Economics). While there was no official statement, trade reports
early in the year said that Fox would ask for about 10 cents per subscriber per month for the business channel.
18
Eventually, however, Fox executives clarified that the business channel was not a factor in determining the rates for
Fox News.
6%1
News Corp. has already invested in some staff for the business channel. According to Television Week, Neil
Cavuto will oversee content and business news coverage.
19
Day-to-day operations will be handled by Kevin
Magee, a former Fox radio syndication chief who is also in charge of the new syndicated morning TV show on the
broadcast network. He was named executive vice president of the business channel in October 2006.
Joining them will be former CNBC correspondent Alexis Glick, who was made director of business news in
September 2006. She is also expected to anchor on-air.
*e$ Dor( . *e$ Dor(
One other change in cable newsrooms was a greater push toward New York City, the traditional home of national
television news. All three networks created a higher presence there in 2006. CNN beefed up its studio, Fox News
bought marketing space on Times Square and MSNBC moved in with NBC News.
CNN, headquartered in Georgia, invested in a large studio at the Time Warner Center (its New York
headquarters). The new studio is technologically advanced, and its centerpiece is a giant video wall displaying
both video and graphics that first showed up during the broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360 in October 2006. t
was promoted as a big-screen showcase for the latest video and informational graphics pouring into CNN from
around the nation, the world and the Web, and was used heavily during the election coverage in November 2006.
All MSNBC operations are expected to be out of New Jersey sometime in 2007 as it begins sharing space with
NBC News at its Rockefeller Center headquarters in Manhattan.
Most of Fox News's programs are aired from its New York headquarters (also the site for a massive 10th
anniversary party in October 2006). The Fox Television group built on its presence in the city by signing a 10-year
deal to air its programming on Times Square. The 1,400-square-foot television screen is an iconic marketing
space, and the Fox group intends to use it to air Fox News content morning and evening, along with local news
from the New York Fox station and sports programming. ts new business channel is also expected to be based in
Manhattan.
)ootnotes
1. Kagan figures for CNN presented in this section include economic data for CNN/U.S. and CNN Headline News
only since they have been sold as a package to U.S. advertisers. The two CNN channels are separated in
Audience analysis because Nielsen Media Research, which aggregates data on audience figures, provides
figures for each one individually. They do not include expenses on other CNN operations or subsidiaries, such as
CNN nternational, CNN en Espanol, CNN Radio, CNN en Espanol Radio, CNN NewsSource, CNN.com, CNN
Money.com, CNN Studentnews.com, CNN Airport Network, CNN to go, and CNN Mobile. (Source: Time Warner
Web site)
2. n 2005, all three channels spent approximately 60% of their total expenses on programming. Fox News
invested the most at 60.4%, followed by MSNBC at 59.2% and CNN at 57.4 %.
3. With much higher revenues, both Fox News and CNN manage to spend a lesser share (and therefore,
generate higher profits) than MSNBC. CNN is expected to have spent about 68% of its revenues to cover
expenses in 2006, against 70% in 2005. That share is much less than MSNBC (76%), but more than that of Fox
News. For 2006, Fox News was expected to devote just about half (56%) of its revenue to cover expenses,
compared to 60% in 2005.
4. Matea Gold, Up Next, Wrangling Respect, Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2006. The bureaus are based in
London, Paris, Jerusalem, Hong Kong, Moscow and Rome. Personal Correspondence with Matea Gold,
December 9, 2006.
5. bid.
6%2
6. MSNBC bureaus and staff size obtained through e-mail correspondence with their PR department on
December 12, 2006. Staff numbers for CNN and Fox News were not available at the time of publication.
-. See Kurt Andersen, The Lou Dobbs Factor, New York Magazine, December 4, 2006.
%. Noam Cohen, With Brash Hosts, Headline News finds More Viewers at Prime Time, New York Times,
December 4, 2006.
'. bid.
10. Critics and the family argued that Grace's questioning was out of line and could be responsible for the
suicide. The channel's continued airing of the episode after the incident was also criticized as in bad taste. Grace
herself was unapologetic and CNN offered no comment but to say it supports Grace.
11.He will continue to host the show and even take it to NBC with two Countdown prime-time specials every year.
n addition, Olbermann will contribute to NBC Nightly News with occasional essays as well. Olbermann Re-ups
with MSNBC, MSNBC Press Release, February 15, 2007
12. He also appears on the Dan Patrick Show on ESPN radio in the afternoons. Bill Carter, MSNBC's
Star Carves Anti-Fox Niche, New York Times, July 11, 2006
13. Mackenzie Carpenter, Anchor Olbermann Counts on Commentary to Boost MSNBC's Ratings,
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 12, 2006
14. bid.
15. Michele Greppi, Seeking Gains from Change: CNN Program angles for samplers, TV Week, June 12,
2006
16. Off camera, the Fox News veteran Kim Hume (wife of anchor Brit Hume) left her post as the channel's
vice president and Washington D.C. bureau chief after the mid-term elections in November 2006. Bruce Becker,
working as an editor and producer with Fox News since 1996, took over on an interim basis.
1-. Comcast had agreed to air the business channel for its digital subscribers, giving it a viewership of 12
million in November 2006. That will be in addition to the subscribers it can reach on DirecTV (15.5 million) and
Cablevision, both of which have agreed to carry the channel. Richard Siklos, Comcast is Said to Agree to Carry
Fox' Planned Business News Channel, New York Times, November 7, 2006
1%. Mike Reynolds, Fox News Bucks Odds, MultiChannel News, April 17, 2006
1'. Michele Greppi, Fox Business Channel in Fourth Quarter, Television Week, February 8, 2007
Digital
While it is among the newer technologies, cable may be as challenged by the digital revolution as any medium.
The main reason is that the nternet is a threat to cable's great appeal: immediacy and news on demand.
Viewing habits have already changed. Consumers now have the choice to get many of their TV news shows
without needing to own a TV through the nternet, downloaded as a podcast or read on their cell phones, all
trends likely to accelerate as the reach of higher-speed broadband connections spreads.
n 2006, all three cable news channels made their television content available on the third screen the cell
phone. MSNBC has made a specialized version of its site available to subscribers of most cell-phone companies,
apart from sending headlines on the phones. CNN sends an audio feed of CNN Radio as well as headlines and
6%3
CNN videos from the site, while Fox News began a new service in January 2007 that allows mobile phone users to
listen to live audio of the channel's on-air broadcasts (see more details in respective sections below).
While it is a niche market right now, the potential for growth of mobile phone content, both text and audio-visual, is
huge. t is helped by the fact that the number of high-speed cell phone networks that can support video is on the
rise. Mobile TV may be in its infancy, but it's growing fast. t will be interesting to see how news friendly it will be.
0able T+ *e$s Web sites
Develo"'ents in 2002
%S*B0 0** )o& *e$s
Website www.msnbc.com www.cnn.com www.foxnews.com
Into!uce
! in 2002
Video podcasts
of NBC
Newscasts
User-generated
" Reports"
Fox Flash
0ell
"hone
content
"MSNBC.com
Mobile" - breaking
news headlines,
special version of
the Web site (no
multi-media yet)
"CNNtoGo"
-breaking news
headlines,
videos and
audio feed of
CNN Radio
"#FOXN" - breaking
news headlines,
videos and audio
feed of Fox News
channel
Source: Respective Web sites, December 2006
The extension to new platforms also brings with it new competition. The cable news networks need to outperform
not just traditional rivals, but online news media leaders. Those include news aggregators such as Yahoo, AOL
and Google. Those Web portals, which are already in heavy use and familiar to consumers, pose a serious
challenge to any traditional media outlet, be it television, print or audio. They aggregate coverage from a wide
variety of news outlets, aiming to give users a wider breadth of information in a kind of one-stop-shopping Web
site. Both these activities are a function of time and convenience, and news outlets are worried that consumers
might not think it worth their while to make the extra effort to come to their individual sites.
What is also unclear is what synergy or relationship there will be among different platforms. Will posting a story on
the Web also drive viewers to the news organization's TV product? Will cable networks become, some day,
nternet companies, the prospect many think is facing newspapers?
While they have all developed their mobile content along similar lines, the three cable news channels have taken
very different approaches to their online identities.
%S*B0 =$$$.'snbc.'sn.co'>
MSNBC.com comes across as an amalgam. As the online home of NBC, MSNBC and the weekly magazine
Newsweek, the site strives to give all three their due while at the same time creating its own identity. Those
efforts, however chaotic they may seem, have succeeded in building an audience.
Unlike its performance on cable TV, MSNBC's Web site (which launched simultaneously with the cable channel in
1996 as a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC) has long been one of the top three news sites on the
nternet, with a monthly average of 26 million unique visitors.
What is in the brand that draws users to the site?
No one trait jumps out. In our stu!y of 38 different news websites, MSNBC doesn't strongly emphasize any one
area. ndeed, it did not earn the highest marks in category of content. But it scored fairly well at everything and did
not earn low marks anywhere, one of the few sites that can make that claim. t really was a jack of all trades.
6%4
The site is word oriented. Roughly three-quarters of the stories on the homepage are text-based. Just 12% of
stories took advantage of the video produced by either MSNBC or NBC. This puts it at the mid-low range of the
spectrum for 'ulti'e!ia. On the days we examined, users could at one point access a slide show or an
interactive graphic, but these were few and far between. There were no live components at all.
The lead story often has a video component attached to it, but most other video offerings on the page stand apart
either within a section labeled Video or under the header NBC News Highlights.
A bigger draw may be the ways users can custo'iIe the news or add their own views, but even here the site
doesn't employ as much as others, falling in the mid-high range of the sites studied. Currently, the site has
focused more on making its content mobile, rather than the site itself customizable. n November 2006, the Web
site began offering free video podcasts of NBC's Nightly News and Meet the Press. Earlier, in April 2006, the
channel announced that a specialized, ad-supported version of the Web site would be available free on cell
phones with nternet capability. MSNBC's mobile phone service (called MSNBC.com Mobile) is available on all
major phone networks. nitially it was only text, photos and podcasts, with a notice on the site saying that
multimedia components were expected, but with no timeline mentioned.
1
The new business model is seen to be a
test to gauge how consumers react to advertising on their mobile devices. There are also additional RSS options.
The home page itself, though, is less flexible. There is only a simple key word search. And users can choose
homepage layout, but only for the current view. At the next visit, it's back to MSNBC's design.
How about citizen voice Web 2.0? MSNBC is not the top destination we found for users who want to be heard.
There is no user4generate! content, no user-based blogs, and no live discussion. There are a few ways to be
heard. Some stories allow users to enter into an online chat. Also, users can rate a story and the results are used
in a couple of different ways. First, the results for that story are posted at the bottom of the piece in a star system
along with the number of ratings to date. Second, on each inside page is a list of most popular stories at a given
moment.
As the online home of multiple news outlets (even Newsweek's own site often directs people here) it is not
surprising that bran! identity can get confusing. There is content from all of its family membersMSNBC, NBC,
Newsweekas well as the Washington Post and the wire services. n fact, wire stories make up a good portion of
their top headlines. Staff editors control the content, but again, there seems to be a bit of a split over whether their
mission is to promote the family names or the content itself.
The top stories of the hour command a good amount of the prime real estate. The next three sections promote
reports from each of the three news outlets, followed by Web site-only content only on MSNBC.com. Scrolling
down the page, though, a visitor can eventually get to a list of content organized by topics in the news. The
editorial staff also keeps tight control over where users go once they enter. None of the stories we examined ever
contained links to outside Web sites.
Perhaps in the end, it is the revenue structure, or lack thereof, that attracts people to the site. MSNBC.com
expanded how many ads it contained from September 2006 to February of 2007, but it still remained on the low
end. n September there were just 7 ads, all of which were self-promotional. n 2007, a few more had been added,
including one prominent outside ad per day and a list of sponsored links at the bottom of the page.
Still, the most visible ones are self-promotional and are relatively unobtrusive.
The site doesn't make up for the ad-free environment by asking users to pay. There is no fee-based content at all,
not even the archive. Nor does the site demand that visitors reveal personal information; it has no registration at
all.
0** =$$$.cnn.co'>
Streaming an average of 50 million news videos a month, and averaging about 24 million unique visitors a month,
2
CNN.com comes second to MSNBC among the three cable news sites in traffic.
6%5
While MSNBC has the advantage of being a partner of MSN, the leading nternet portal in the U.S., CNN benefits
from its commercial relationship with Yahoo, which is the search engine for CNN and sells the advertising
displayed on the site.
3
t is also working to tie together its digital media components. n October of 2006, the
channel formed CNN Events, a division devoted to cross-media marketing that allows a marketer to buy
advertising across the CNN spectrum television, the nternet, and newscasts provided through cell phones and
podcasts.
4
What impression does the site give its users? Like MSNBC, the site seems more about doing many different
things than identifying itself around particular skills. Again like MSNBC, the site did not earn top marks in any one
of our content categories, but scored in the mid-range for all, and earned low marks for none.
The site maintains the cable channel's focus on up-to-the-minute information. But it also makes some effort to
develop its own Web identity with less emphasis on the on-air personalities and more on user's ability to
customize the news. Beyond the top few stories, however, it also relies more often than not on outside wire copy
for its headlines and its breadth.
On the homepage, the latest headlines take up the bulk of the screen view. The lead story dominates the site on
the left of the screen, and is normally accompanied by three or four related stories that have some multimedia
elements. On September 22, 2006 it was a story about the E. coli outbreak in spinach with links to a CNN video
report on the lack of standards for spinach safety and a graphic map of states with E. coli outbreaks.
t adds new content at least every 20 minutes, with a time stamp for the latest update at the top of the homepage
and time stamps at the top of each full story. The focus on continuous updates, though, seems to take priority
over other depth to the news. The site averaged just four related story links to lead story and just over one for
other top headlines.
The CNN name is important on the site, but as with !e"th, takes second seat to timeliness. Most headlines are
wire stories, and those that come from CNN staff carry no bylines, except when stories are taken directly from the
cable channel or occasionally from a sister outlet from the Time Warner family. The layout of the page is by top
news and then by topic area like World, Health, Travel and Law, and the stories here are mostly AP as well.
Overall, CNN.com fell in the high-mid range for the level of brand control.
Under the headlines is a list of video segments, offered again in two ways: either most popular or best video
(though it is not entirely clear how best is determined). Next to that the site displays its premium video content
CNN Pipeline. A commercial-free subscription service of streaming video content, it was launched in December
2005 and has helped to make the site more appealing.
5
CNN puts noticeable effort into letting the user custo'iIe the material. The site scored in the mid-high range
here. Users can create a customized home page. They can also choose to have the information come to them
through RSS with more than 20 feeds, ranging from straight news to blogs, Podcasts (both audio and video) or
even to their mobile phones (an option not yet available at even some of the higher-tech sites we examined but
available on all three cable news sites).
The site's mobile content is in a section called CNN to Go, which includes news headlines, alerts on breaking
news and an audio-video newscast produced specifically for the Web called Now in the News. CNN also offers a
live audio feed of CNN Radio. What's more, nearly all of the content on CNN.com is free. That includes all
archives, a feature quickly fading on many Web sites. Users don't even have to register to go through content, but
can if they choose. The only fee-based content is CNN Pipeline.
n an attempt to be more interactive, CNN launched a citizen journalism initiative in August 2006. Called -
Report, it invites people to contribute news items for possible use on the Web and on the cable channel. On a
subsidiary site called CNN Exchange, users can submit their own news reports, photos or video either on specific
solicited topics or those of their own choosing. CNN editors then screen the material and decide what to publish.
(CNN does not pay for the material).
6%6
The user content here stands out among news sites, but some of the more standard ways to invite user input are
absent. There is no place on the homepage for users to post comments, enter live discussion, rate stories or take
part in a user-dedicated blog. Even the ability to email the author is offered in only the most general capacity.
When it comes to 'ulti'e!ia components of its content, the site landed right in the middle of our ranking scale. t
is still heavily based on narrative textit made up roughly 70% of all the content on the homepage. Pre-recorded
video and photography were still the most common other forms, but the site also offered live streams, slide shows
and interactive polls. The lead story was almost always made into a package of reports offered in at least three
different media formats.
When it came to revenue options, the site demands little of users and varies on its use of ads. The only fee-
based content is on CNN Pipeline, a broadband channel providing live streaming video, video-on-demand clips
and video archives. ts subscription fee is $25 a year or $2.95 a month.
6
For the rest of CNN.com, the cost to
users is putting up with a barrage of ads. When it comes to ads, one visit to the home page displayed 19 separate
ads, only 6 of which were self-promotional. But another visit had just six ads, all but one of which was non-CNN
related.
)o& *e$s =$$$.fo&ne$s.co'>
Fox News, the star on cable, lags behind the other two cable news channels online. ts Web site has roughly a third
the audience of its competitors, though it made efforts to address that lag in 2006.
n November, Roger Ailes appointed Ken LaCorte, Fox Television's Los Angeles bureau chief, to head
Foxnews.com and take over all editorial and design functions. He will report directly to John Moody, vice president
of news for the Fox network.
The site was revamped in September 2006 in an effort to streamline the content. t also added new interactive
and delivery features. Visitors to the site can now custo'iIe it as they like and have the option of getting Fox
News headlines on their Blackberry phones and cell phones.
7
As a result, the Fox site now earns the highest
marks for both the level of customization offered on the site and for the level of multi media offerings, and mid-
range marks in all other categories. t has become somewhat more competitive, by those measures, with its rivals.
Even so, Foxnews.com still feeds off the brand identity and strength of the cable channel more than it embodies an
identity for itself. For the most part, the site is the Fox News Channel. The brand promoted here are the Fox
personalities rather than individual stories, to a much greater degree than CNN or MSNBC.
The top of the page is dedicated to the news headlines, but up-to-the-minute news is clearly not given the same
kind of priority as at other cable news sites. t updates every half hour, but there are usually just three or four
headlines, which are brief unadorned reports from wires. Each headline stands alone, sometimes with a related
wire story link underneath. There is little attempt to create coverage packages with multimedia reports or
backgrounders from Fox News. About a quarter of the stories we captured had been augmented somehow by
staff members, whose names, unknown to most, appear on the inside (i.e. landing) page at the very bottom of the
story. What's more, the page has just one overall time stamp of the latest update, rather than time stamps on
each story as is common at other sites.
After top headlines and other latest news from the AP, the page focuses on promoting the Fox brand with
content involving Fox hosts and programs. n the upper right corner when we looked in September 2006 were Fox
News videos, with a Web-exclusive interview with Senator Barack Obama. The interview was an exclusive that
first aired about 10 hours earlier. That same interview also appeared as the lead item in the next section down,
Only on Fox, along with a link to a science report Black hole won't devour Earth, scientists say. Other
subsections on the page also carry the Fox name and previously aired Fox News content: Fox411, Fox Online,
FNC iMag, Fox News Talk and individual program listings.
The site does emphasize the use of 'ulti'e!ia more than those of its cable rivals. Just over half of the content
was text-based (primarily the wire feed stories) with heavy use of video and still photos but also some live
streams, podcast items, polls and interactive graphics. n October 2006, Foxnews.com launched two new video
6%-
products, collectively called Fox News Flash.
8
They include two one-minute newscasts, in the morning by Fox &
Friends and in the afternoon by the Fox Report with Shepard Smith. Those news segments can also be received,
without any need to subscribe to the site, in the form of video podcasts.
The site also targeted mobile phone users starting in January 2007 when it launched a new service called
#FOXN, the acronym for the digits you dial to access it. t allows customers to listen to live audio of the cable
channel's on-air broadcasts. The service costs $2.99 a month and so far is available only to Cingular wireless
service customers right now. t will also offer headlines on demand as well as a call-back service to let users know
when a particular program is about to begin on the television channel.
9
n promoting its bran!, the site places little emphasis on making its users part of that identity, ranking in the low-
mid tier of all 38 sites. The personalities on Foxnews.com speak to you much more than you speak to them or
even to each other. The site had one of the lowest user-participation scores of any Web site in the study, offering
only the most basic ability to e-mail the author of a report along with a poll on how visitors rated the Fed (related
to a topic to be discussed on Your World later that day). Even the e-mail ability is only occasional, and the e-mail
goes not to the staff member who worked on the piece but to the nameless editor of that section. There is no
way to post comments or rate a story, no live discussion and no user-oriented blog.
When it comes to economics, the main revenue strea' on Foxnews.com is commercial ads. Upon entering the
site, Foxnews.com visitors get pummeled with ads, the bulk of them for outside commercial enterprises. On
average, viewers saw 21 separate ads just on the home page. That puts the site in the top tier of all the ones
examined
There is a news archive, at least two years of which is free to users. t includes stories from all the main sections
of the site, though video components are quite spotty at this point.
All in all, Foxnews.com is the lesser-nourished sibling of the Fox News Channel. Whether attention and resources
begin to even out as the online world expands remains to be seen.
)ootnotes
1.See the MSNBC Mobile section on the Web site for details
2.Scott Leith, CNN to Start Web site for Viewer's Journalism, the Miami Herald, August 3, 2006; Also see Online
News Ownership section, State of the News Media 2007.
3.Elise Ackerman, New media making deals with old news providers, San Jose Mercury News, July 31, 2006
4.As Greg D'Alba, CNN's head of marketing and sales, was quoted as saying, event marketing gives the CNN
brand the opportunity to extend itself beyond the television channel to all digital media, specifically to initiatives
like podcasts and video-on-demand.
5.On September 11, 2006 it used CNN Pipeline to stream the TV channel's coverage of the original terrorist
attacks, exemplifying how it can be used for value added content.
6.While Pipeline is fee-based, most digital offshoots and hybrids are typically advertising-supported and therefore
free for consumers. Unofficially, many nternet-savvy users have figured out how to download virtually any TV
show they want for free. Using file-sharing software, they have set up Web sites where they share digital video
recordings. The most prominent of those is YouTube.
-.Jon Fine, How Fox was Outfoxed, Business Week, February 13, 2006
%.The two newscasts are also available on the News Corp. sister site MySpace.com and through iTunes.
Customers who have video capability on their Cingular, Sprint or Amp'd phones can also get them. Paul J.
Gough, Fox Making News in a Flash, Hollywood Reporter, October 30, 2006
6%%
9. Glen Dickson, Fox News Channel Provides Audio-to-Go, Broadcasting & Cable, January 17, 2007
/ublic Attitu!es
What do people think of cable news?
A look at the survey data of public attitudes and public use of the medium reveals signs of declining use, some
declining trust, and in some ways less separation between the audiences of the three main cable channels than
one might expect.
Overall, the number of people who say they regularly get their news from cable channels decreased in 2006, as it
did at all the other news outlets. Just over a third, 34%, described themselves as regular viewers of cable news, a
drop of 4 percentage points from 2004.
1
What Do They thin(J
Whether coincidentally or not, people have also become more skeptical of whether they can trust cable news.
Even CNN, which leads all other outlets in credibility, doesn't command the level of trust it did a decade ago. ts
credibility ratings have been slipping steadily since 1993 (the channel was launched in 1981). n 1998, 42% of all
those surveyed said they believed all or most of what they saw on CNN, the primary metric Pew has used to
measure credibility. n 2006, the figure was 28%.
Still, CNN remains the most trusted source among those surveyed, just slightly higher than the next most trusted
sources CBS's 60 Minutes (27%), C-SPAN (25%) and Fox News (25%).
Fox News, on the other hand, has a loyal audience whose belief in what they see on the channel remains
unchanged. The number of people who believe all or most of what they see on the channel didn't fall in 2006,
making Fox News one of the few media outlets not to have suffered a decline.
2
0able *e$s Believability
1985 - 2006, by Channel
ue 25
U 20
4<
40-
5- BB
5BK
TL
1985 1989 1993 1996 1998 2000 2002
jJCNM
U Fox Mews
)*) MSNBC
Yeai
Design Your Own Chart
6%'
T T
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Note: Fox News & MSNBC were launched in 1996 & only included in 2000 in the survey
A Reuters/BBC poll released in May 2006, found similar levels of credibility. CNN and Fox were tied when
Americans were asked to name their most trusted specific news sources. Both generated a rating of 11%
modest figures, but higher than those of other media outlets.
3
Those ratings for the two channels don't reflect, however, the partisan leanings of their viewers. n the Pew
Survey responses, Republicans said they believed Fox News more, Democrats CNN.
Over time, however, Democrats have seen both news sources as less credible. n 2006, only about a third of
Democrats (32%) gave CNN the highest marks for credibility, down from almost half (48%) just six years earlier.
One in five (22%) believed most of what they saw on Fox, down from better than one in four (27%) in 2000.
Republicans, in contrast, have come to trust Fox more in the last six years, while growing more skeptical of CNN.
ndeed, in 2006, Republicans were as trusting of Fox (32% believed most of what they heard, up from 26% in
2000) as Democrats were of CNN. And Republicans were just as skeptical of CNN as Democrats were of Fox
(just 22% believed most of what the channel said, down from 33% in 2000).
n short, the newest data on public attitudes seem to put in clear relief the idea that Republicans gravitate to Fox
and Democrats to CNN. Their impressions of the two channels are almost mirror images of each other.
Who Is Watching 0able *e$sJ
Are those reverse images also reflected in the audience profiles of the news channels?
The biennial study on media consumption produced by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
may also be the deepest source for understanding who the cable news viewer is. The survey probes the media
habits of more than 3,000 people every two years.
Using its findings, the average news viewer emerges as just that average. Regular viewers of cable news are
neither richer nor better educated nor better informed than regular users of other news outlets.
4
The regular cable
news viewer can be personified as a married, middle-aged man who has at least 14 years of education. He earns
well, with a median income of $62,000, and tends to live in the suburbs. He has a high degree of hard-news
consumption, and that links to his moderately high knowledge of current affairs. He is fairly adaptive to technology
(more likely than other news consumers to own a PDA, iPod or Tivo). Compared to viewers of other media, the
cable news viewer earns more (local and network news viewers have a median income of $45,000) and is also
much more adaptive to technology. He is also younger than viewers of network news (who are nearly 53 years of
age). The average cable viewer is 47.5, and there are only marginal differences by channel.
How does this reflect in his political leanings? He is more often than not a political independent and describes
himself as having a moderate ideology.
Are there any differences between regular viewers of the three cable channels? The biggest difference is political
ideology. After that, however, the differences may not be as great as some might imagine.
Using Pew's media consumption survey, we have compiled a profile of the average viewer of different media
outlets and sectors.
The average viewer of Fox News identifies himself as conservative in ideology (although he classifies his party
affiliation as independent).
The average CNN viewer, in contrast, self-identifies as being a moderate, but also tends to be registered as
independent.
The MSNBC viewer tends to be a Democrat, and describes himself as a political moderate.
6'0
Fox News viewers are the oldest at 48.7 years, followed by CNN (47.1) and MSNBC (46.5). Of the three, the CNN
viewers have the lowest median income, $45,000 a year. n contrast, both MSNBC and Fox News viewers make
$62,000.
One other difference between the viewers of the three channels is their news knowledge. n a fairly simple test,
regular viewers of CNN were able to answer more current-affairs questions correctly than viewers of Fox News or
MSNBC.
5
Out of the three questions on current affairs that were asked in the survey, CNN viewers got two
correct. The Fox News and MSNBC viewers just got one correct. (The questions asked respondents to name
which party had a majority in the House of Representatives, the current U.S. secretary of state, and the president
of Russia). That puts CNN viewers on par with viewers of network news, but more knowledgeable than local-news
viewers (who got just one question correct).
What does this audience profile portend? One possibility is that the audience is fracturing, with the most liberal
audiences heading to MSNBC, a more moderate group at CNN and the more conservative at Fox. But that would
probably be an oversimplification. The networks are also dividing by style and even somewhat by topic. MSNBC is
moving to make politics a brand, with a large dose of opinion and personality. CNN has moved further away from
talk on its main channel, but toward it on Headline News. And Fox is holding steady. And the audience declines
across the board suggest that the three channels may be competing for each others' audiences in the months to
come.
)ootnotes
1.The Pew Research Center for the People & Press, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July
30, 2006. Online at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageD=1067
2.n 2000, 26% of those surveyed believed what they saw on Fox News, and in 2006 the figure had barely
dropped, to 25%.
3.The poll was conducted in 10 countries by research firm GlobeScan on behalf of Reuters, BBC and the Media
Center. Trust Catching Up with Media Technology: Poll, Reuters, May 3, 2006.
4.The Pew Research Center conducted its latest biennial survey on news consumption in April-May 2006. t is
based on telephone interviews conducted among 3,204 adults nationwide. t was released on July 30, 2006.
Online at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportD=282
5.The Pew Research Center for the People & Press, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July
30, 2006. See topline at: http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/282.p
Alternative *e$s
An International /ers"ective
Three new channels entered the fray of international 24-hour English-language news in 2006. BBC World News,
backed by the well-established British broadcaster, expanded from three hours to full-time in the United States.
The other two, Al Jazeera and France 24, were new channels making their global launch in English, with the U.S
just one piece of that bigger story.
All three, with their disparate reputations and infrastructure, faced a host of challenges.
First, audience trends suggest that the number of cable subscribers for the existing channels may have reached its
peak in the U.S. The most established TV broadcasters are working hard to lure back viewers, and the three U.S.
cable news channels saw their combined audiences decline.
6'1
Second, all three new international channels have limited exposure in the U.S. For American audiences to see
them, the new channels have to negotiate carriage with cable operators so they can be aired. And cable
distributors, who have a limited capacity for the number of channels they can carry, may not be eager to give up
valuable space for niche international news channels. For their part, the U.S. cable news channels are all backed
by influential U.S. media conglomerates and are also combined in package deals with other, more lucrative,
entertainment and/or sports programming. The new foreign imports have no such advantages. So the
international news channels, with their niche appeal, have had to make do with a small start in the U.S. television
landscape. BBC World and France 24 are accessible in only one market each, while Al-Jazeera, which faces
political as well as economic concerns, can be viewed only online. According to Chris Daly, a professor at Boston
University, it seems highly unlikely that there would ever be a mass market in the United States for journalism
that originates in Britain or anywhere else.
1
Survey research supports that view. According to the latest Pew Research Center biennial survey of U.S. news
consumption, fewer people are following international news closely (dropping 13 percentage points, from 52% in
2004 to 39% in 2006). n a separate question, more than half the respondents (58%) said they follow international
news only when something important is happening.
2
International 0able *e$s 0hannels
At a #lance
BB0 Worl! Al 5aIeera -nglish )rance 2:
June 1, 2006 +,(#(
Baunch Date
&aunch-
November 15, 2006 December 7, 2006
<$ner
BBC Worldwide
(public
broadcaster)
Emir of Qatar (privately owned)
France TV & TF Joint
Venture (public-
private)
Base! in London (U.K.) Doha (Qatar) + 3
broadcast centers: Kuala
Lumpur (Malaysia),
London, & Washington
D.C.
ssy-les-
Moulineaux (near
Paris, France)
Infra4
structure
50 bureaus
worldwide;
250 foreign
correspondent
s
20 bureaus worldwide; 800
total employees; 500+
journalists
180 journalists
not a%aila'le
Bu!get
$1 billion for launch
$100 million (80
million euros)
each
4househol!
s
2 million in the U.S.;
281 million
worldwide
80 million homes worldwide
80 million
homes
worldwide
each
4geogra"hi
c
200
countries
worldwide
not a%aila'le
100
countries
worldwide
Where in the
U.S. can you
see itJ
New York
City
(Cablevision)
nternet Stream (Jump TV &
VDC) and Houston
(GlobeCast TV)
Washington
D.C. (Comcast);
UN
Headquarters
Website www.bbc.co.uk |english.aljazeera.net www.france24.com
Source: Multiple sources, please refer to section footnotes BBC
.orld
6'2
The BBC Worldwide division of the British Broadcasting Corporation made its first foray into the realm of U.S. 24-
hour cable news networks in April, 2006.
t signed a deal with Cablevision to distribute a 24-hour news channel called BBC World on its digital stream in the
New York area (the largest Nielsen television market). The agreement helps the British news channel reach 2
million Cablevision subscribers in the New York metropolitan area. Before the Cablevision deal, BBC news was
available only through 30-minute segments aired on PBS stations or on BBC America, BBC's channel for
entertainment programming. BBC America, which was launched in the U.S. in 1998, is distributed by Time Warner
(where the news airs in a three-hour block in the morning).
The 24-hours news channel went on the air in June 2006. A month later, it also began to air World News Today, a
one-hour breakfast program (7 a.m. ET) aimed specifically at the American audience, though it is broadcast from
BBC's London headquarters. Anchored by George Alagiah, it competes directly with the American network
morning news shows.
3
While its American audience is minuscule compared with the number of households reached by its U.S. rivals
(see Audience), BBC World News executives see it as a good start and hope to sign on more cable systems in
2007. As media critics report, they hope to attract educated, affluent American professionals and through them,
coveted advertising dollars.
4
n the promotion campaign of the launch, BBC World executives stressed their content as an alternative to Fox
News and CNN. Targeting the hard-news consumer, their strategy hinged on BBC's content and experience in
telling both sides of the story. t hopes to convince American viewers that it will be unbiased, objective and a
better alternative than the existing choices.
Globally, the BBC is probably the leading television and radio brand of all and is counting on that fame to
overcome the obstacles it is facing in its entry into the U.S. television market.
n contrast, the two other international news channels, Al Jazeera and France 24, entered the international news
scene for the first time. For them, the U.S. is just one of the many markets in which they have to compete and
make a place for themselves.
Al/Ja0eera English
After multiple delays, the English-language sibling of the controversial Arab Al-Jazeera Network (formerly known as
Al-Jazeera nternational) launched on November 15, 2006. Unlike its sister network, which focuses only on the
Middle East for an Arabic-speaking audience, Al-Jazeera English is aimed at the larger English-speaking
audience around the world.
Unlike BBC World, Al-Jazeera is privately owned and comes with the strong financial backing of the oil-rich Emir
of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. He is reported to have spent $1 billion on the channel launch already.
Not that it doesn't come well equipped. The channel employs more than 500 journalists, including a number of
veteran Europeans and Americans,
5
working in about 20 bureaus across Latin America, Asia, Africa and the
Middle East.
6
n addition, the channel gets support from the Arabic Al-Jazeera network, with which it will share
resources such as news crews and footage.
7
Al-Jazeera English is the first English-language news channel to be based in the Middle East, in Doha, Qatar.
Newscasts will come from four locations Doha; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; London, and Washington D.C.
The channel launched with 12 hours of programming, but expanded to 24 hours by early 2007. Apart from news
updates from its four broadcast centers, it has business and sports programs as well as news analysis and talk-
shows (for example, the Riz Khan Show).
t is carried on cable and satellite systems in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. For American viewers,
however, the channel is barely accessible, even though Washington is one of its key broadcast centers.
6'3
Despite talks that went on for more than a year, no American cable distributor had agreed to sign a deal with the
channel by the end of 2006. At launch, it could be accessed only on four little-known platforms VDC and Jump
TV (where the channel is streamed over the nternet), GlobeCast, a niche satellite network, and Fision, a new
fiber-optic network based only in Houston that itself launched in December, 2006.
8
The reluctance stems essentially from of the reputation the Arabic Al-Jazeera. Branded by the Bush
Administration as anti-American, it is also one of the most aggressive news operations in the Middle East, and, at
point or another, has been banned in many Middle Eastern states. t has even been accused of having ties to the
Al-Qaeda (see PEJ's Al-Jazeera Timeline and nterview in August 2006). Media watchdog organizations, such as
the very conservative Accuracy in Media (AM) and the more respected Middle East Media Research nstitute
(MEMR) are critical of its coverage and what they consider its dubious connections. They believe the same kind of
reporting will carry through on the English Channel.
But that has not deterred the channel, or its executives. Nigel Parsons, managing director, says viewers of the
English version should not expect to see the Al-Jazeera that the Arab world watches daily.
9
Whether it will be able
to convince U.S. television distributors (and advertisers) is another question.
France 12
The French, too, added their voice to the international media scene in 2006.
Their 24 hour news channel France 24 went on air in December 2006. A joint venture between the public
broadcaster France Televisions and TF1, France's biggest commercial network, the channel airs simultaneously in
French and English from its headquarters near Paris. n addition to its own 180 journalists, it will draw on TF1
and France Televisions' correspondents.
10
As with Al Jazeera English, the U.S. is just a small part of the channel's reach. t is broadcast across the world on
cable and satellite networks in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Washington area in the United States. At
launch the channel came into about 80 million homes in about 100 countries.
Like BBC World and Al-Jazeera, though, France 24 finds most of those 80 million homes outside the U.S. So far,
it can be seen only in the U.N. headquarters in New York and in the Washington area. n the capital, it airs on the
Comcast cable system's digital stream with the help of the MHz network, a D.C.-based television network that
promotes international programming and helps it get cable, satellite and nternet exposure in the U.S.
11
n addition,
the Best of France 24 was featured on its national program stream, which is carried on PBS stations, GlobeCast
TV (which also carries Al-Jazeera) and DirecTV starting in January 2007.
12
President Jacques Chirac is said to be the force behind making France 24 a reality. n 2003, a report by the
French Parliament argued for the creation of the channel to counter and balance (Anglo-American)
mperialism."
13
According to its mission statement, France 24 aims to convey the values of France throughout the
world. As Alain de Pouzilhac, who heads the new channel, says, this channel has to discover international news
with French eyes, as CNN (does). with American eyes.
14
While some critics question the channel's credibility given its government support, which includes $112 million in
subsidies, channel executives insist that it is editorially independent and nonpartisan. Pouzilhac says the channel
will demonstrate that as it gears up to cover the French elections in April 2007. He also hopes to attract viewers
by covering areas that are generally under-reported developments in Africa, for example, where many
countries are former French colonies.
Plans include a Web site and further expansion by 2009. According to media reports, channel executives say it
will earn about $9 million in revenues by 2008, and expect advertising revenues of $4 million in 2007. However,
as the same media reports indicate, this still leaves France 24 about $100 million in debt.
15
All three channels, then, have ambitious plans to add their perspective to international news coverage. And all are
optimistic that in time there will be enough viewers for what they have to offer in the U.S. as well.
6'4
0urrent T+
One channel that seems to have succeeded in capturing an American audience is Current TV. Launched on
August 1, 2005 by the entrepreneur Joel Hyatt and the former vice president and Democratic presidential
nominee Al Gore, the channel has been making waves.
16
ts viewership is growing, it is making a profit and it is
expanding both online and internationally.
Boasting of the first national network programming created by, for and with 18 to 34 year olds,
17
Current TV's
selling proposition is a participatory model that claims to give its citizen journalists the kind of power that used to
be enjoyed only by the mainstream media.
The channel is also distinguished by its short-form programming. Programs consist of a series of short
segments, each called a pod. They are 15 seconds to 5 minutes long and cover a range of issues aimed at young
adults. Some are professionally produced, others are viewer-created content (VC2). Within three months of
launch, VC2 made up 30% of all programming.
18
While it is not strictly a news channel, one of its key regular pods is Google Current, which runs at the top and
bottom of each hour. The pod displays the most popular Google news searches in the past hour. t is about three
minutes long and has an anchor going through the top stories. n addition to this regular pod, many of the VC2
pods deal with events in the news and current affairs.
One of the mantras of the network is that there are no editors who decide what the news on those segments is.
As the channel puts it, news isn't what the network thinks you should know, but what the world is searching to
learn.
19
The channel is carried in most U.S. cities through agreements with Comcast, Time Warner Digital (where it can be
seen on the digital tier), DirecTV and a host of cable companies. When it launched, it was available only in Los
Angeles and New York, and those two markets gave it an initial audience of 20 million households.
20
Projections for
2006 put the number at about 30 million. While that is considerable compared with other international news
channels, it is still too small to be counted by Nielsen; the general threshold of success for aspiring cable or
satellite channels is about 40 million homes.
Even with a limited number of on-air subscribers, and only about a year in existence, analysts estimate Current TV
to be making a profit. n August 2006, the Kagan Research analyst Derek Baine predicted that the channel would
turn a profit of $3 million on estimated revenue of $47 million in 2006.
21
The success is also attracting advertisers. Baine estimated that Current TV earned advertising revenue of about
$10 million in 2006, and that it would go up to $19 million in 2007. ndeed, advertising on the channel is also in
short-form. Each pod is accompanied by one isolated creative brand message (i.e., an ad) up to 60 seconds in
length. n addition, there's a longer ad spot, up to three minutes long, every hour. The channel has even
experimented with viewer-created advertising.
22
Current expanded its online presence in September 2006 in a joint venture with Yahoo nc. They launched four
Web-based broadband channels (some content will be aired on the TV channel). Each channel, supported by
advertising, deals with a specific subject area buzz or popular Yahoo search subjects, traveler, action on
action sports and driver dealing with automotive topics.
Current TV is even going international. n October 2006, the channel signed a deal with British Sky Broadcasting
(BSkyB) to start a version of the viewer-created digital-video news format for the United Kingdom and reland.
23
The buzz around the channel is largely connected to its potential rather than to its performance right now,
especially given the changing media landscape and growing appetite for viewer-created content. According to the
New York Times, it has lived up to its billing as a network that gives its audience a voice in the programming.
24
And based on response from its competition, the concept has appeal. n November 2005, MTV announced it
would start pursuing viewer-created content and purchased the nternet hub iFilms.
25
More Recently, NBC has
6'5
created a channel on YouTube to promote its programming, and CNN began CNN Exchange, a Web site
dedicated to viewer-created content.
*e$s as 0o'e!y. or 0o'e!y as *e$s
For some years now, Americans have increasingly been getting daily news headlines and analysis from an
unlikely source Comedy Central. The network, owned by Viacom, currently has two of the most popular
political news and satirical programs in America the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report.
The Daily Show, launched in 1996, airs Monday to Thursday at 11 p.m. (ET). ts format is a mixture. The first half
resembles a regular newscast with headlines and features (accompanied by satirical graphics and commentary),
while the second half is more like a talk show, with a one-on-one guest interview.
The show launched with the former ESPN commentator Craig Kilborn as the host. n 1999, he resigned to start a
late-night comedy-variety show on CBS and was replaced by Jon Stewart (who negotiated his name into the
show's title a year later). t is under Stewart's tenure that the show has become a big success.
n 2006, the Daily Show averaged 1.6 million viewers (up 12% from 2005), Comedy Central reports.
26
The year
also saw ratings jump 12% the show's best performance in the last 10 years, according to the channel. Survey
data collected by the Pew Research Center also indicates a surge in popularity. According to its biennial news
consumption survey, viewership doubled from 2004 to 2006 (from 3% to 6% of respondents).
27
The program also has a strong following online, where it is available in short video segments soon after the actual
broadcast. According to Comedy Central executives, the Daily Show was the most popular section on the
network's Web site in 2006, drawing 2.8 million viewers a month.
28
The show is not just attracting viewers, but impressing media critics as well. Since 1999, the show has won 5
Emmy awards and two Peabody awards; all credited to Stewart, former executive producer Ben Karlin and the
head writer, David Javerbaum.
29
Building on the show's success, Comedy Central introduced a spin-off, the Colbert Report, in October 2005.
30
t
also runs four days a week for half an hour, at 11:30 p.m. ET directly after the Daily Show (and promoted at the
end of it every night).
Anchored by Stephen Colbert, previously one of the Daily Show's popular correspondents, the Colbert Report is
more a satire of the talk-show culture, particularly of the O'Reilly Factor, with Colbert playing a self-important
know-it-all correspondent.
31
Helped by a large lead-in audience, the Colbert Report has also proved a hit, and has helped Comedy Central
stretch its audience later into the night. t generated 1.2 million total viewers in 2006.
32
That was 60% more than the
program that aired in that time slot in 2005, a talk show called Too Late with Adam Corrolla.
Online, the Colbert Report also ranked just behind the Daily Show with a total of 2.5 million viewers. According to
Comedy Central, site views for the fourth quarter of 2006 grew 165% over the same quarter in 2005 (when the
show launched).
33
Even with such success, the Comedy Central shows still trail late-night programming on broadcast TV. As of
December 2006, the late-night network shows had double or more the audience of the Daily Show. According to
the trade magazine Media Life, NBC's The Tonight Show with Jay Leno leads the pack of late-night network
shows, with an average of 6.2 million viewers in December 2006. t is followed by CBS's Late Show with David
Letterman (4.2 million viewers) and then by ABC's hard-news Nightline (3.2 million).
34
But Doug Herzog, President of Comedy Central, believes that era is over. He was quoted in the Los Angeles
Times in 2005 as saying of the network shows that those traditional formats are growing tired, and younger
6'6
viewers are growing tired of them.
35
There is some evidence that men 18 to 34 years old are moving from late-night
broadcast shows to cable.
36
Media and advertising executives have notices the channel's success as well, attributing it to both effective
counter-programming and to the shows' ability to get away with more daring content (they are free from the FCC
content restrictions) at that hour.
37
Whether or not they can overtake network audiences, the success of both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report is
undeniable. So much so, indeed, that Fox News is planning a satirical news show of its own. With one season
confirmed in March, the show is planned to be a weekly, shown Sunday nights, with a decidedly non-liberal bent,
unlike the Comedy Central shows.
38
)ootnotes
1. Shelley Emling, British Media Crave U.S. Audience; Political deology, Better Coverage Cited, the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, June 18, 2006
2. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership,
July 30, 2006. Online at: http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/282.pdf (Q56 and Q57)
3. David Bauder, BBC World News Breaks into U.S. Market, Associated Press, June 1, 2006. See also Jon
Friedman, The BBC Hopes to Attract U.S. Viewers, MarketWatch.com, July 3, 2006.
4. Robert Macmillan, Britons Wants U.S. to Read All About it, Reuters, July 9, 2006
5. Besides the well-known American Dave Marash, News personalities hired by Al-Jazeera English include Sir
David Frost (from the BBC), David Foster (Sky News) and Riz Khan (CNN).
6. Paul Farhi, Al Jazeera's U.S. Face, Washington Post, November 15, 2006
-. bid.
%. Gail Shister, U.S. ndifference Dismays Al-Jazeera English Anchor, Philadelphia nquirer, November 15, 2006
'. Hassan M. Fatah, A New Al Jazeera with a Global Focus, New York Times, November 13, 2006
10. The channel launched with 390 employees, including 180 journalists. About France 24, on the France 24
Web site www.france24.com
11.MHz network reaches 4.9 million viewers throughout the entire Washington metro area via broadcast, cable
and satellite. http://www.mhznetworks.org/about/whoweare
12. MHz Network Press Release, MHz Launches France 24, December 7, 2006.
Online at: http://www.mhznetworks.org/news/2243.
13. The official explanation is that Chirac's interest grew from the 2001 terror attacks in the U.S., and that
the channel will be one way to correct the growing misunderstandings among cultures. John Ward Anderson,
All News All the Time, and Now in French, Washington Post, December 7, 2006
14. John Ward Anderson, All News All the Time, and Now in French, Washington Post, December 7, 2006
15. Dan Carlin, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera. and France 24?, Business Week, December 4, 2006
16. Karen Tumulty & Laura Locke, Al Gore: businessman, Time Magazine, August 8, 2005
6'-
1-. Stephen Warley, Youth News on Demand, www.TVSpy.com, September 14, 2005. According to
recent studies, teenagers and young adults prefer the nternet over traditional media, consume news at their
convenience and want the opportunity to participate in the overall newsgathering process.
1%. The editorial process for selecting which viewer segments to air involves both Current TV staff and
outsiders. Current TV editors pick the segments they consider good for airing and then post them on the Web
site, www.current.tv. Viewers can then view them on the site and vote on which ones run on the channel.
1'. Jacques Steinberg, For Gore, a reincarnation on the other side of the camera, the New York Times, July
25, 2005
20. t inherited this number of subscribers because it took over the channel space, also known as bandwidth,
of an older channel, NewsWorld nternational (NW).
21. Joe Garofoli, Gore's TV dea Seems More Current, San Francisco Chronicle, August 14, 2006
22. Randi Schmelzer, Current TV tries democratizing ads, Ad Week, September 26, 2005
23. BSkyB is received by 8.2 million households in the British sles. Tom Steinhart-Threlkeld, Current TV
Heads Overseas, MultiChannel News, October 6, 2006
24. Jacques Steinberg, For Gore, a reincarnation on the other side of the camera, the New York Times, July
25 2005
25. James Hibberd, Progress report: the new nets, Television Week, November 14, 2005
26. Viewership data provided by Comedy Central Corporate Communications, January 8, 2007
2-. The Pew survey contrasts the show with Fox News's O'Reilly Factor, which is watched regularly by a
just slightly higher number 9% of respondents. The O'Reilly Factor averages 2 million viewers every night,
and is considered the top-rated cable news show in the country (see Cable TV Audience).
2%. Viewership data provided by Comedy Central Corporate Communications, January 8, 2007
2'. n a move that took many media experts by surprise, Karlin resigned from the Daily Show in December
2006. The New York Times reported that Javerbaum had wanted to leave as well but had been persuaded to stay.
Jacques Steinberg, The Executive Producer of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report is Leaving, New York
Times, December 2, 2006
30. Jon Stewart's company, Busboy Productions, launched the show. See Howard Kurtz, TV's Newest
Anchor: A Smirk in Progress, Washington Post, October 10, 2005
31. Howard Kurtz, TV's Newest Anchor: A Smirk in Progress, Washington Post, October 10, 2005
32. Viewership data provided by Comedy Central Corporate Communications, January 8, 2007
33. These do not represent unique viewers. Data received from Comedy Central Corporate Communications
on January 8, 2007.
34. Late-Night Ratings sourced from Nielsen Television ndex in Toni Fitzgerald, Dayparts Update, Media
Life Magazine, January 5, 2007
35. Scott Collins, Cable is Up Late, Plotting TV Talk Show's Demise, Los Angeles Times, August 15, 2006
6'%
36.Examples of the trend include the success of Cartoon Network's adult swim shows cartoons that are
adult-oriented, such as Family Guy and ESPN's SportsCenter at 11 p.m. Mark Glassman, Cable Shows are
Stealing Male Viewers from Broadcast TV, New York Times, May 9, 2005
3-.Scott Collins, Cable is Up Late, Plotting TV Talk Show's Demise, Los Angeles Times, August 15, 2006
3%.Paul J. Gough, Fox News Channel Preps Right Leaning Satire, Hollywood Reporter, November 20, 2006
Bocal T+
By the Project for Excellence in Journalism
Intro
Local TV news, long America's most popular information medium, is hardly proving immune to the revolution
changing journalism.
n 2006, audiences appeared to be dropping for newscasts across all time periods during the day even
mornings, which had been growing. That dampened the hopes raised in earlier years that the hemorrhage in
viewers had stabilized.
Stations have responded by adding more programs and changing when they air. Some have experimented with
putting the news on later in the evening, abandoning the late afternoon. Others have launched shows in mid-
morning, after the networks have gone off the air. The number of news hours each day, according to industry
data, is at record highs.
Still other stations are continuing to broadcast news for multiple stations from a single newsroom, an effort that
saves money but raises questions about localism and stretching people thin.
Elsewhere, however, there are signs that another challenge to newsrooms may have eased cutting newsroom
budgets. The budget-tightening seen in earlier years which news directors worried only accelerated audience
declines was not as evident as before.
The local TV news business remains robust financially, but a fundamental concern looms. f audiences are
dropping, and there are limits to how much more news programming can be added, there comes a point where
financial growth becomes difficult.
n 2006, the political advertising wars provided a boost, one that TV owners and analysts expect to grow even
more important as the 2008 presidential campaign approaches.
There are signs that the local TV news industry is at long last beginning to take the Web more seriously. t has
been among the last of the traditional media to do so. We have found in past years that some Web sites were
more advertorial than news in their content. That, finally, may be changing.
But the pressures on stations to build Web sites, add content to them, and transform production to high definition,
all tax budgets and much of that, insiders say, is coming out of news.
6''
s the public noticing any change? The answer seems to be a qualified yes. Audiences appreciate that local TV
news is largely opinion-free and fact-heavy. But more people are worried about advertiser influence and video
press releases passing as news. And by large numbers Americans think most local TV news is all the same. f TV
stations are innovating or improving their journalism, most viewers say they haven't noticed it.
Au!ience
Though it remains America's most popular choice, local TV news's core broadcast audience is now decreasing
sharply.
That may not distinguish the medium from other traditional news platforms. But in recent years we had seen some
signals that the loss of audience might have stopped. The new data suggest that the hope, at least for 2006,
evaporated. Even morning news, the medium's growth area, lost viewership.
For this report, to analyze audience we examined ratings and share data from four different sweeps months
February, May, July and November, the periods stations use to set their rates for advertising.
1
n previous years, we
relied on only one sweeps period, a key one in May.
What we found was downward trends in every time of day, in every time of the year.
The key metrics for audience in television are ratings (the number of households watching a program at a given
time among all households in the market) and share (the number of households watching a particular program
among those households that have their TV sets on). Ratings give you a number for a program's average
audience. Share tells you the percentage of TV viewers at that moment who are watching that program. We found
that both were dropping throughout the year and throughout the day.
2
Bocal *e$s1 Declines in atings
S$ee"s. 2002 vs. 2003
S$ee" %onth -vening *e$s Bate *e$s %orning *e$s
)ebruary 46.6% 487.9% 42.7%
%ay 49.8% 43.9% 42.6%
5uly 0% 47.2% 4;.7%
*ove'ber 42.;% 42.7% 42.6%
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license Note:
Numbers include ABC,CBS, Fox and NBC Affiliates
Bocal *e$s1 Declines in Share
S$ee"s. 2002 vs. 2003
S$ee" %onth -vening *e$s Bate *e$s %orning *e$s
)ebruary 0% 487.7% 43.7%
%ay 46.8% 42.6% 480.3%
5uly 48:.7% 482.6% 482.6%
*ove'ber 46.8% 420% 488.8%
Source: Nielsen Media Research, used under license Note:
Numbers include ABC,CBS, Fox and NBC Affiliates
-00
-arly -vening *e$s
Early evening news, the traditional dinner-time newscasts, saw a loss in ratings and share in every sweeps
month. Those programs, indeed, seem to be bearing the brunt of changes in consumer lifestyles and viewing
habits people getting home too late to catch the news or not tuning in to the news even when they are at home.
Year to year, ratings fell for almost for every sweep month in 2006, especially earlier in the year. The number was
down 8% in February, down 9% in May, flat in July and down 3% in November.
Average -arly -vening *e$s atings
Comparing Performance Year-to-Year in Sweep Months
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Nielsen Media Research used under license Note: Numbers nclude ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliates
Share fell by even steeper rates, save for February sweeps (when it was unchanged), dropping 14% in July and
7% in May and November. That means that the problem is not simply people turning off the TV. People are
choosing to watch other things. n past years, when other stations were adding news, such a decline might have
meant that people were going to those places for news. There was less evidence in 2006, however, of new
stations entering the field.
The problems are severe enough that some stations are even doing away with their earlier newscasts, shifting
them to start later. For the Gannett group, that proved to be a successful strategy. n Miami, its ABC affiliate
WPLG-TV shifted its 5 p.m. newscast to 6 p.m. and replaced it at 5 p.m. with more popular programming (Dr.
Phil). The ratings for the time slot improved, and the stronger lead-in helped ratings for the new 6 p.m. newscast as
well. What's more, the change was accomplished with no loss of news programming. Two of Gannett's other
stations, in Cleveland and Atlanta, made similar switches.
3
Bate *e$s
f early news was suffering enough to make programmers begin to re-evaluate their newscasts, late news, the
period after prime time, had even more trouble. According to analysts, people are up earlier, home later or in bed
earlier boding poorly for the late-night newscasts.
Ratings were down in 2006 from the year before in every sweeps period. They fell a striking 14% in February,
then 6% in May, 4% in July and 6% again in November.
-01
Average Bate *e$s atings
Comparing Performance Year-to-Year in Sweep Months
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Nielsen Media Research used under license Note: Numbers nclude ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliates
And the story was even darker for share, suggesting that more people are choosing to watch something other than
news.
Not only was every sweeps month down from a year earlier in share in late-night, but most months fell by double-
digit percentages. November 2006 was down 20% from a year earlier, July 17%, May 7% and February 13%.
One newscast that seemed particularly hard hit was the 11 p.m. one, which airs on both the East and West
Coasts (Mountain and Central late news starts at 10 p.m.). Examples of the slump could be found in some of the
biggest television markets. n New York, two of the three main local stations, WABC and WNBC, saw their 11 p.m.
news ratings drop 12%; the ratings of the third station, WCBS, rose less than one point. n Washington, D.C., all
three local stations (WRC, WJLA and WUSA) saw late-night newscast ratings drop more than 10% in the 2006
November sweeps compared to the year before.
4
Similar reports came from Philadelphia and from one Central
time zone market, Chicago.
5
Like the experiments in the evening news slot, several news directors seem to think late-night viewers might be
found an hour earlier instead. Fox Television has been running its late-night newscast at 10 p.m. for years. Now
some affiliates of the newly created CW Network (a merger of Warner Bros. and UPN) are offering it some
competition. The CW network, like Fox, stops prime-time programming at 10 p.m.
n top markets like Chicago and Boston as well as smaller ones like Richmond, Va., and Yakima, Wash., local
stations introduced or made plans for 10 p.m. newscasts, even despite stiff competition. General manager Peter
Maroney of Richmond's WTVR, a CBS affiliate, is partnering with the CW affiliate WUPV, providing the latter with
resources for a10 p.m. newscast planned for March 2007. He believes that a lot of people want to get their news
at that hour.
6
n Chicago, Fox-owned WFLD was planning a 10 p.m. newscast in March 2007 going up against three other
local newscasts and two Spanish-language newscasts.
7
The story is similar in Boston, where in December 2006 the NBC affiliate WHDH-TV began producing a 10 p.m.
newscast to air on the CW affiliate WLV-TV. Both stations are owned by the Sunbeam television group. The 10
p.m. program on WLV, an earlier edition of WHDH's 11 p.m. newscast, will challenge the existing Fox newscast
-02
that is the time slot's market leader.
8
Those are examples of a single newsroom's producing newscasts for more
than one station, a trend that the researcher Bob Papper of Ball State University in ndiana estimates is occurring at
150 stations nationwide (see News nvestment).
Bocal *e$s in the %orning
Perhaps the starkest finding in the data concerns mornings. The time slot before the network news programs
come on at 7 a.m. has been one of the bright spots for local news. While small compared to the evenings,
audiences had been growing. The broader data set from 2006 suggests that that growth too, has ended, at least for
now.
Ratings year-to-year fell 6% in February, 7% in May, 8% in July and 7% again in November.
Average %orning *e$s atings
Comparing Performance Year-to-Year in Sweep Months
Ifcl
February May July
Sweep Month
[] 2005 | ]
2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Nielsen Media Research used under license Note: Numbers include ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliates
-03
4)4
Share didn't fare any better in the morning. t dropped a substantial 17% in July and saw double-digit declines in
May and November as well approximately 11% in both months. February, the remaining sweep month, also
saw share dip, by 5%.
Here again, local stations seem to be experimenting with their timing. Some stations are starting local newscasts
later in the morning (at the other end of the strong network morning shows). n Philadelphia, for example, the Fox
affiliate WTFX added an 11 a.m. newscast in October 2006. The market also has two 10 a.m. newscasts, run by
competing stations.
9
The move to produce newscasts on more than one station can have a double edge. On one level, it represents
stations trying to deal with the pressure on audience and revenue by creating more content. Yet that in turn tends
to spread news staffs thinner. Producing more news does not always translate into producing better-quality news.
%easuring Au!iences
Another problem for local TV in 2006 was the growing complexity of actually counting the television audience. The
year saw Nielsen Media Research, the standard-bearer of TV audience measurement in the U.S., embark on
some its most ambitious initiatives. Announcing its plan to remake television ratings to keep pace with media
consumption for network, cable and local TV Nielsen launched what it calls the Anytime Anywhere Media
Measurement or A2/M2 initiative in June 2006.
The announcement had three significant components. First, the company said it would begin tracking viewership
of TV commercials. Second, it introduced plans to fuse TV and nternet viewership. And third, it announced plans
to eliminate the traditional paper diaries in local TV markets within five years.
Data on vie$ershi" of co''ercials1 Nielsen Media Research plans to release numbers in May, 2007 that will
show how many people actually sit through commercials on TV. That new yardstick could very possibly alter the
economics of the TV marketplace, affecting how much advertisers will pay to air ads.
The release of such data was delayed twice in 2006 (from November 18 to December 11, and then to May 2007)
because not everyone in the TV business is happy about the change.
The major broadcast networks and advertising agencies have signed on, but most major cable networks are
giving it a pass.
When Nielsen Media first introduced the idea of measuring ad viewership in early 2006, the broadcast networks
were the first to welcome it mainly to show their advertisers that they would support the idea of better data on
who is watching commercials. Then, however, the picture got more complicated. n the 2006 upfronts (the weeks
when TV stations and advertisers decide advertising rates) broadcasters did not fare as well as they expected.
Nielsen began offering three streams of ratings data in April 2006
10
, but advertisers and broadcasters immediately
disagreed on which one they would like to use. The ad agencies succeeded in setting ad rates based only the
stream they preferred - the number of live viewers (which tends to have the lowest number of viewers). The
agencies argued that they should not have to pay for viewers who watch commercials after they are broadcast.
These live rates were lower than what the broadcasters expected, and now the broadcast networks do not want a
similar parsing out of data when the commercial ratings are released.
n a meeting with clients in December 2006, Nielsen announced a compromise plan: t would make available all the
data needed for customers to create their own commercial ratings for any minute of viewing and any interval of
digital-video-recorder (DVR) playback. The hope was to satisfy both advertisers and programmers (the broadcast
and cable networks) who could then tailor the ratings according to their preference. t would also give them the
option to include DVR playback at any interval up to seven days.
11
According to trade reports, broadcasters are eager to make commercial ratings the standard for the TV
marketplace and were said to be pushing Nielsen to have the new measurement ready to roll before the May
2007 upfront (which is more critical for national programs and advertisers than for local advertising rates). n
-04
January 2007, however, Nielsen announced that the data would be released on May 31, i.e., not until after the
upfront presentations.
12
The new system was proving an even harder sell to the cable networks. Among those who refused to take part in
the first ad-ratings test were ESPN, NBC Universal, Turner Broadcasting, Discovery, Fox Entertainment, Lifetime,
A & E and MTV.
Their outright rejection was tied to the fact that the difference between the audience for a show and the audience
for commercials tends to be larger on cable than on broadcast TV. Cable is susceptible to the drop-off because it
tends to carry many more commercials and for longer periods than the average broadcaster.
The cable advocates argued that Nielsen Media's methodology for calculating the ratings was flawed. They called
for the new process to be audited and accredited by the Media Ratings Council (MRC), and for it to pass a
practicality and usability test.
One problem the cable people have is that Nielsen Media's commercial minute cannot distinguish between
national spots and local spots. f the commercial minute measured contains a local or regional ad, viewership will
be low, and that might skew the data. They worry that advertisers might not pay them the rates they deserve
because of deflated viewership numbers when a local commercial is on-air. Also, the minute might overlap
between two programs, and that could skew viewership.
The research company has been trying to address all those concerns. According to Nielsen Media press releases,
it is working on weeding out local ads from national ads using special codes, and emphasizes that the data it
releases this year should not be relied upon for negotiating ad rates. t has also agreed to an audit and is offering
the first batch of evaluation data for free to participating clients.
Analysts believe that despite all the back and forth, measuring the viewership of commercials is here to stay, and
that those new ratings could take over the program ratings as the currency for advertising rates.
*e$ Technology /lans1 Part two of the June announcement was Nielsen Media's effort to use the same
audience pool to collect data on both nternet and TV use. This effort, which involves two sister companies, is
proceeding according to plan.
The two audience research firms that combined their tools are Nielsen Media Research and the nternet /Web
traffic-measurement company Nielsen/NetRatings. They are autonomous, but each is part of the larger Dutch
media conglomerate, The Nielsen Company (better known as VNU before January 2007).
13
The data fusion plan aims to remake the ratings system so that both units can combine their expertise and
capture TV watching on multiple media including out of home, on the nternet and on mobile devices such as
iPods and cell phones. By the second half of 2007, Nielsen Media plans not just to fuse the TV and nternet panel
data, but to have meters on both TV's and PC's so that broadcast, cable and online viewing habits can be
tracked precisely.
n December 2006, it introduced its Video on Demand (VOD) measurement system, which can compare the
performance of a program when it airs on the traditional outlet (broadcast or cable) to its performance on-demand.
That could prove to be a boost for video-on-demand advertising support.
14
A month earlier, the company had announced the launch of a National TV/nternet Fusion Database. t means a
single, integrated sample that can measure TV and online use (and their relationship) simultaneously. Though the
data set is still cumbersome, with the two separate datasets measured separately and then merged into one,
Nielsen Media is working on a single-sample nternet/TV panel.
15
As part of the release of that database, Nielsen Media provided findings from the data fusion trials in April 2006.
Though the findings were limited (and conducted in-house), Nielsen Media used them to indicate the wealth of
analyses that are possible with the database.
16
Nielsen also announced that its first attempt at out-of-home
-05
viewing would begin in January 2007. That is when it began measuring TV viewing by college students
following the younger members of its national sample to their college dorms.
17
*o %ore /a"er1 Another change to Nielsen Media Research's measurement system is its plan to eliminate
handwritten diaries and extend its people meters.
Handwritten diaries are still the only source of viewership in the smallest TV markets, and continue to be used in
the larger markets as well to get viewer demographic information. Those paper diaries, in which viewers
voluntarily write down every program they watch, are obviously fallible, and broadcasters have long been calling
for a better system. Nielsen Media's aim is to remove them altogether and replace them with some sort of
electronic measurement. Whether the company's five-year timeline for the switchover is realistic is another matter;
the shift to electronic measurement requires effort and money, and that requires much negotiation with advertisers
and television networks in the affected markets.
The largest markets, meanwhile, received the more advanced Local People Meters (LPMs) as promised. The
meters are electronic boxes that measure not just what is being watched, but who is watching it. By July 2006, they
were operational in the top 10 television markets in the U.S. Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San
Francisco, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Detroit, Dallas-Fort Worth and Atlanta.
18
The mid-sized markets, which make up the largest share of the local-station universe (210 markets) continued to
be measured by either the original electronic meters, the handwritten diaries just mentioned, or a mix of the two.
Ho$ *ielsen %e!ia %easures +ie$ers
In the 280 U.S. Television %ar(ets
Ty"e of %ar(et %etho! Use!
*u'ber
of
%ar(ets
0overe!
/ercent of
T+
Househol!s
0overe!
Bocal /eo"le
%eter
%ar(ets
Bocal /eo"le %eters 'easure total
vie$ershi" an! vie$er
!e'ogra"hics !aily
80 70%
0o'bine!
%eterADiary
%ar(ets
-lectronic 'eters 'easure total
vie$ershi" !ailyN Han!$ritten !iaries
trac( vie$er !e'ogra"hics four ti'es
a year
:2 :0%
Diary %ar(ets
Han!$ritten !iaries trac( total
vie$ershi" an! vie$er !e'ogra"hics
four ti'es a year
83: 70%
Source: Nielsen Media Research Web site; Broadcasting & Cable, April 17, 2006
As it plans to eliminate paper diaries from the smallest markets, Nielsen Media will extend the reach of the Local
People Meter into the next eight biggest markets. n October 2006, it announced that it would roll out the meters in
Houston, Tampa-St. Petersburg, and Seattle-Tacoma by October 2007. n 2008, it plans to introduce the device
first in Phoenix, then in Minneapolis-St. Paul and Cleveland (by August) and then in Miami and Denver by
October.
Those people meters were the subject of much controversy when they were launched in 2004. Some of the
biggest TV groups, including News Corp. and Tribune, strongly questioned their accuracy and even accused them
of having an ethnically skewed sample. By 2006, however, the opposition gave way to a general acceptance of
the Local People Meters as the trading currency for the markets they're deployed in.
-06
One of the biggest reasons for that shift was Nielsen Media's dtente with News Corp. n October 2006, the two
announced an agreement whereby News Corp. signed on to use the audience rating service for eight years.
According to the agreement, Nielsen Media will invest $50 million to improve the response rate of young and
minority viewers and in turn, provide measuring services to 49 News Corp. TV entities.
19
That is a big change from
a few years ago, when News Corp. was highly critical of Nielsen Media's methods and even funded a pressure
group, 'Don't Count Us Out', to block the Local People Meters. The group's activities eased by the end of 2005
and ceased altogether in 2006.
The cessation of hostilities can be tied to two main developments. One, the creation of the CW network, led to
huge shifts in local TV affiliations (see last year's ownership section). Fox lost many of its UPN affiliates, which
were largely the source of the allegations of ethnic skewing. Second, and probably more critically, Fox programs
have been performing quite well in the people-meter markets.
n developing its new measurements, Nielsen Media Research decided not to partner with Arbitron, the largest
U.S. radio ratings company, to create a central local-market-ratings service for both radio and television. n March
2006, it announced that it would work on its own strategy to provide more accurate and complete measurement
of TV ratings.
Back in 2000, Nielsen Media Research and Arbitron had signed an agreement giving Nielsen Media an option to
form a joint venture for the commercial deployment of Arbitron's Portable People Meter (PPM) which can
encode and log any type of audio including its potential use for measuring TV ratings.
Arbitron first tested the portable meter in Houston in September 2005. The results were similar to the ratings
trends seen in Nielsen Media's Local People Meter markets with one major exception: ratings were higher with the
Arbitron device, in part because it could track out-of-home viewing. Those developments were welcomed by the
industry, which also saw them as a way to temper Nielsen Media's monopoly on the TV ratings market.
20
Not surprisingly, though, Nielsen Media eventually decided not to add weight to the rival system.
21
As Nielsen
Media prepares to measure the viewing habits of the new media consumer, it also seems to realize that it cannot
diminish the value of its core product its national sample of television households, which forms the basis of its
new initiatives as well.
The Dar!stic(
To gauge audience, the TV industry relies on two metrics share and ratings. Share indicates the percentage of
the television sets in use that are tuned to a program at a given time. f 500 television sets are turned on in
Orlando and 250 are tuned to the 7 p.m. news hour on WKCF-TV, then the station gets a 45 share for that time
slot.
Ratings, on the other hand, step back a level and indicate the percentage of households tuned to a program out of
all households with television sets not just those in use but also those that are turned off. n the same example,
if Orlando had 1,000 television sets in total, with 250 tuned to WKCF-TV, then it would get a rating of 14.
22
n previous reports, PEJ gathered the May sweeps audience data for network-affiliated stations using the
database from BA Financial Network, an established media research and investment firm. We then calculated
averages for the early-evening and late-night newscasts, combining them into a national average.
23
The data, going
back to 1997, allowed us make comparisons year to year.
This year, we were able to expand our data sample to get a richer perspective. We looked at how the local news
market has been performing by looking at ratings and share during four sweeps months February, May, July,
and November. For the first time, our sample this year also was able to include Fox-affiliated stations.
24
)ootnotes
1. Those four sweep months are when Nielsen Media Research measures television audiences to help the
industry determine advertising rates for TV stations.
-0-
2. We took Nielsen data for all the stations affiliated with the four biggest local television networks in Nielsen
Media Research's Designated Market Area (DMA). That gave us the ratings and share for an average local
newscast in each time slot. According to Nielsen Media Research, the DMA identifies an exclusive geographic
area of counties in which the home-market television stations hold a dominance of total hours viewed. There are
210 DMA's in the United States. See Nielsen Media Research Web site - http://www.nielsenmedia.com
3. Michele Greppi, Newscast Time-Slot Shift Aids Stations, Television Week, January 8, 2007
4. John Maynard, Late-night Newscasts See Big Drop in Viewers, Washington Post, November 30, 2006
5. Paige Albiniak, Not Great News for Late News, Broadcasting & Cable, January 15, 2007
6. Douglas Durden, WUPV Plans Launch of 10 p.m. Newscast, Richmond Times-Dispatch, January 18, 2007
-. Robert Feder, Fox Mulling Launch of 10 p.m. Newscast, Chicago Sun-Times, December 12, 2006
%. Robert Gavin, Let the Battle Begin at 10, Boston Globe, December 19, 2006
'. Neal Zoren, Channel 29 Launches The First News at 11, Daily Times, October 9, 2006
10. For a specific show, the three streams of data, that Nielsen Media provides, are: live viewers (who watch
the show as it airs), live + same day audiences (people who watch it sometime on the day it aired), and live +
seven day audiences (people who watch it within a week of the initial broadcast).
11.Nielsen Media says it will provide six streams of commercial ratings data to meet its clients' needs. Claire
Atkinson, Nielsen to Release Commercial Minute Data in May, Ad Age, January 16, 2007; Holly Sanders,
Ratings Row, New York Post, December 12, 2006; Linda Moss, Nielsen, Clients Meet on Ad Ratings,
MultiChannel News, December 7, 2006
12. Claire Atkinson, Nielsen to Release Commercial Minute Data in May, Ad Age, January 16, 2007
13. n February 2007, The Nielsen Company acquired full control of NetRatings nc. Georg Szalai, Nielsen
Buys Rest of NetRatings, Hollywood Reporter, February 6, 2007; Also see Marketing Firm VNU Changes its
Name to Nielsen Co., Reuters, January 18, 2007
14. VOD has been available on pay-cable networks for some time, but only recently expanded to major
networks. Prime-time network shows are now offered on a next-day, on-demand basis through distribution pacts
with cable operators/distributors like Comcast and DirecTV. Steve Gorman, Nielsen to launch video-on-demand
ratings service, Reuters, November 16, 2006; Also see Linda Moss, Nielsen to Launch VOD-Measurement
Service, MultiChannel News, November 11, 2006
15. The company's tentative timetable indicated that they would set up the technology to begin tracking iPod
and cell-phone viewing and have systems in place to measure out-of-home viewing in 2007. See Joe Mandese,
Nielsen, NetRatings 'Fuse' TV and Online Ratings, Plan Single Sample, Media Post, October 10, 2006
16. Among the highlighted findings, 73% of all people had nternet access. There was also correlation
between nternet and television use heavy nternet users tend to be heavier television users than those who
don't use the nternet much. Further, a person who watches a television network is much more likely to visit the
network's Web site. Nielsen Media Research, Executive Summary: Topline Findings from the April 2006 Nielsen
Media Research and Nielsen//Net Ratings Data Fusion, November 1, 2006
1-. Louise Story, At Last, Television Ratings Go to College, New York Times, January 29, 2007. Nielsen
Media Research, College Students Away from Home to be ncluded in Nielsen's National People Meter Sample
Beginning January 29, 2007, Press Release, October 9, 2006
-0%
1%. Nielsen Media Research Web site Local People Meter Roll-Out Schedule. Online
at http://www.nielsenmedia.com/lpm/rollout_sched.htm
1'. Alana Semeuls, News Corp., Nielsen End Rift, Los Angeles Times, October 18, 2006
20. n a test carried out in Houston in 2005, Arbitron put out-of-home TV viewing (in Houston's PPM
experiment) at about 14.5% of total TV viewing. Ball State University's Middletown Media Studies puts out-of-home
TV viewing at about 9.5% of total TV viewing, although little of that viewing involved news (see 2006 Local TV
Audience).
21. Nielsen Media and Arbitron did collaborate, however, on measuring consumer's media exposure and
product purchases in a joint-venture called 'Project Apollo' in 2007. Sarah McBride, Arbitron-Nielsen Venture
Shows Promise, Wall Street Journal, February 27,2007
22. Share tells a station how it is performing versus the other stations in the local area. Ratings give a sense
of the total audience and are used by advertisers to determine what price they are willing to pay for an ad on the
particular program. Webster, J., Phalen, P., & Lichty, L., (2000) Ratings Analysis: The Theory and Practice of
Audience Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey
23. For early-evening news, we took newscasts between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. in the Central and Mountain
Time zones and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Eastern and Pacific Time zones. For late news, we took 10 p.m. to 10:30
p.m. in the Central and Mountain Time zones and 11 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. in Eastern/Pacific.
24. Data in previous reports was limited to stations affiliated with ABC, CBS or NBC. We remained consistent
with this approach year to year for the purposes of a trend over time. Other stations were not included either
because they did not carry news or, as in the case of Fox Network affiliates, they aired news in non-traditional
time slots, particularly during prime time. The time slots we measure represent the traditional timing of local
newscasts.
-cono'ics
The local TV business remained healthy in 2006 but there may be the beginnings of concern as audiences
continue to drop across the board.
ndustry analysts predict that by the time the final numbers are in for 2006, double-digit growth in revenues will
emerge. While they have been wrong beforetheir projections proved overly optimistic in 2005if they hold true,
it would mark a significant turnaround.
One reason for the optimism is the country's political climate. The high number of close political campaigns for the
House and Senate in 2006 translated into record political ad blitzes, exceeding all expectations.
As for the newsroom, it remains local TV's key performer. n the latest survey, more than half the news directors
reported their newsrooms were making a profit in 2005, much higher than those surveyed a year before. There
was also an increase in the amount of revenue the newsroom contributes to the station.
Total evenue
All that good news follows what turned out to be worse-than-expected final numbers for 2005. For that year, the
latest for which the industry has complete data, total revenues for local TV stations were lackluster, to be
charitable.
Average station revenues in 2005 fell by 8%, according to an analysis of BA Financial data of 726 local TV
stations.
1
The drop was worse than the industry had become accustomed to. Historically, the average revenue for
local news stations has remained pretty steady. The two years that stand out recently are 2000 and 2004 both of
which were presidential election and Olympic years.
-0'
n dollars, the declines meant the average TV station took in total revenue for 2005 of $23.7 million. That followed
unusually high revenues of $25.8 million in 2004, which in turn was a 10.5% increase over 2003.
Average Station evenue
1995 - 2005, Average Across All Stations That Produce News
Source: BA Media Access Pro, July 2006
nflation adjustment is based on 2002 dollars
Design Your Own Chart
Those average dollar figures can be somewhat deceiving, of course. The average station is a fictional entity
created for the purpose of statistical comparison. The industry in reality is dominated by the biggest cities. ndeed,
the top 25 markets consistently account for more than 60% of the total, according to the BA. Those larger
stations make far more than the average.
A!vertising evenues
For 2006, analysts expect better things once all the numbers are in.
Most TV revenues still come from advertising, and the industry analysts believe that in 2006 those began to grow
again, markedly.
2
Veronis Suhler Stevenson, an investment firm that analyzes media companies, projected that
total advertising revenue for local TV stations would rise almost 10% in 2006 (to $27 billion, up from $24.6 billion in
2005).
3
T+ Station A!vertising evenues
2007 4 2002. All )igures in Billions of Dollars
Dear *ational S"ot Bocal S"ot Total
2002 =est.> F82.8 F8:.9 F26
2003 80.3 8:.8 2:.2
200: 88.: 8:.3 23.9
2007 9.9 87.3 27.:
-10
Source: Veronis Suhler Stevenson, 2006-2010 ndustry Forecast, Pg. 244
Projections by the other major market research source for the industry, the Television Bureau of Advertising (TVB)
were similarly positive. n December, its analysis of TNS Media ntelligence/CMR's estimates for the top 100
markets indicated that local broadcast TV's ad revenues were up 10% for the third quarter of the year compared
to the same quarter in 2005. That matches Veronis Suhler's estimated increase for the entire year. All the top
advertisers increased their spending, with government and organizations leading the way.
4
The year 2007 is expected to be more moderate, but not as flat as previous non-election years have been. The
Television Bureau projects total TV advertising revenues to rise about 3%. Veronis Suhler projects that revenues
will drop, but somewhat less than in 2005 4%, as opposed to 5%.
Actual A! evenues in 2003
The projections, however, are just that projections. And, as we've seen in past years, things often turn out
differently.
Consider the last year for which actual figures are available: the political off-year of 2005. Projections called for ad
revenues to increase. t didn't happen.
After reaching about $26 billion in 2004, actual total advertising revenues fell about 5%, to $24.6 billion. Both
national and local advertising performed worse than expected.
5
(That is almost equal, by the way, to the 8% drop in
total station revenues another sign that advertising is still the dominant source of TV revenue.)
National spot advertising spending dropped to $10.5 billion from the $11.4 billion in revenues in 2004. Local spot
advertising made about $14 billion, marginally less than the $14.5 billion in 2004.
6
Bocal A!vertising1 /olitical Win!fall
One significant component of local TV advertising is political ads. They often make the difference between a good
year and a great year for a local station.
ndeed, political advertising has gradually become the nearly exclusive domain of local stations. As campaigns
are increasingly able to target where undecided and swing voters lived, down to their congressional districts and
voter precincts, they have learned to match their targets to TV markets and to buy their ads just in those key
areas.
n 2006, political advertising proved the odd-even-year adage even truer by bringing in better-than-expected
revenues.
For the 2006 mid-term campaign, analysts predict that spending may match, and perhaps top, the record set in
2004 for political ad dollars. n November 2006, TNS Media ntelligence estimates that about $2 billion would be
spent on the 2006 mid-terms.
7
That was even more than the $1.6 billion that the research firm had predicted a few
months earlier (the second figure seconded by the trade publication Ad Age). The Television Bureau had put its
forecast at $1.4 billion in September 2006.
8
The $2 billion mark, if estimates prove accurate, would mean that political advertising accounted for 7% of local TV
ad revenue in 2006, a record number.
9
A similar pattern was seen in the last election year, 2004 . Election ad spending then, estimated at $1.61 billion,
accounted for 6.1% of all station revenue, based on estimates of political ad spending and total revenue (See
2005 Annual Report ).
The amount should be kept in perspective. Altogether, political revenue (including congressional, gubernatorial, and
local races) is still a small though increasing portion of total local TV station revenue.
-11
/olitical A! evenues
2000 4 2002
Dear
Bocal T+ /olitcal
A! evenue
Total Bocal T+
evenue
/olitcal as a /ercentage
of Total evenue
2002 =est.> F2 billion F26 billion 6.:%
2003 F8.2 billion F22.8 billion 2.8%
200: F29.; 'illion F2: billion 2.9%
2007 F20.3 'illion F23.; billion 2.7%
Source: Broadcasting & Cable, 2006; Veronis Suhler Stevenson ndustry Forecasts; TV Bureau of Advertising, 2000 & 2002; Morgan Stanley
Estimate, 2004
What about the future?
The Television Bureau of Advertising (TVB) projects that in 2008 total spot advertising will grow 10% over 2007,
driven largely by political advertising.
Even 2007, which would typically see some decline in ad spending, will not decrease dramatically, according to
the BA Financial analyst Mark Fratrik, as candidates try to establish their presence in early-primary and swing
states like Ohio, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
10
Who spends all this money? Senate campaigns, such as those in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, accounted
for about 14% of the total $44 million as of September 2006. The rest was mostly spent on House races and on
governors' races. Some states stand out. According to a TNS release in September 2006, $160 million had been
spent on TV ads in California alone, and that total was expected to triple once final figures were in. Other states
with large spending include Virginia, Michigan, and Florida.
Political ad dollars, though, carry with them some caution.
f, in the future, both traditional and political advertisers begin to reduce spending on local broadcast TV, it is
bound to have an adverse impact on the industry. To gain a more regular revenue stream, analysts suggest, the
industry should look to new avenues like demanding retransmission consent money from cable or taking
advantage of trends like delivering content to cell phones.
&ocal Ca'le Ad%ertising
n the last decade or so, local advertisers have also had another option for their ads local cable news channels
(see 24-Hour News). Those outlets are attracting advertisers with their lower rates, an ability to reach similar
markets and the added advantage that many regional cable systems can carry the same advertisement to
different markets at once.
According to Veronis Suhler Stevenson, local cable advertising grew at an annual compound rate of 8.2% from
2000 to 2005. For 2005-2010, it is projected to grow at a rate of 13%. By comparison, local spot ad revenue for
local broadcast stations grew only 0.8% from 2000 to 2005, and is expected have an annual compound rate of
growth of 2.5% until 2009.
Thus, while not huge, local cable is becoming a relatively larger competitor for local TV news ad dollars.
#ro$th of Bocal S"ot vs. Bocal 0able A!vertising
2002 4 200;. /ercentage #ro$th
-12
Dear Bocal S"ot Bocal 0able
200; =est.> 2.7% 8:.3%
2002 =est.> 3.; 8:.2
M200: 6.7 87.7
2002 6 2.7
Source: Veronis Suhler Stevenson, 2006-2010 ndustry Forecast
*e$sroo' -cono'ics
How much does the newsroom contribute to a station's revenue? According to a survey of news directors, a pretty
substantial amount, and growing. The latest Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) and Ball State
University survey, released in October 2006, indicated that the revenue made from news increased in 2005
compared with the previous year.
11
According to the news directors surveyed, 44.9% of TV station revenue came from the news department in 2005.
That is an increase of two percentage points from 42.8% in 2004. What's more, the increase was felt across
markets and affiliations.
12
/ercentage of T+ Station evenue /ro!uce! by *e$s
200242003. All Stations
Dear Average /ercentage
2003 ::.9%
M200: :2.;%
2007 :2.8%
2002 79.6%
Source: RTNDA/Ball State Universitys
Note: Based on survey responses of news directors
How well were newsrooms doing on their own? When asked whether their newscasts were making a profit, news
directors were much more positive than a year earlier, and more in line with 2002 and 2003.
More than half, 57.4%, said they made profits in 2005. Only 10% said they had shown a loss, while 8% said they
had broken even.
13
That was a big improvement over 2004, when only 44.5% of the news directors reported that they earned a profit.
That was down almost 14 percentage points from the 58.4% of the year before.
14
News professionals say those numbers need to be taken with some caution. t is not clear how much news
directors know about their station's finances; some industry experts say not that much. But the trends over time
outline some interesting patterns.
Bocal T+ *e$s /rofitability
All Stations, 1996 - 2005
-13
Source: RTNDA/Ball State University Surveys
Based on survey responses of news directors
Design Your Own Chart
The biggest switch was
in those reporting profit
versus breaking even.
n 2004, nearly a
quarter of all
respondents reported
breaking even. That
was higher than in any
other year for which we
have data. n 2005, the
number saying they
broke even fell back to
8.1%.
The differences in
profitability between the
network affiliates are
also striking, but not as
great as a year earlier.
More news directors
affiliated with Fox
reported profits (65.2%
of them), than with any
other group. On the
other end were CBS
affiliates, with 58.9%
reporting profits. ABC
affiliates fell in the
middle at 61.4%, but
also saw the biggest
jump from 2004, when
only 44% reported
profits.
Fox-affiliated stations
were the best
performers in 2005
(see also Cable TV
Audience). For the past
three years, about two-
thirds of all news
directors affiliated with
Fox have said they
have been making a
profit. And even more
significantly, in 2005
none of them said they
were showing a loss.
15
A number of the Fox
affiliates were in the
news in 2006 for
adding new newscasts
or adding to existing
ones, at various parts
of the day. There were
press reports of
additional newscasts in
cities like Chicago,
where a 10 p.m. newscast is planned
for release in 2007; Philadelphia,
where an 11 a.m. newscast began
and an evening newscast is planned;
and Boston, also preparing to launch
a 10 p.m. newscast and planning a
morning one for
2007 (see Audience).
16
)ootnotes
1. The Project uses BA Financial
Network's database to calculate
station revenue the last full year for
which data are available is 2005.
Since there are hundreds of local TV
stations in the U.S., the report (like
previous ones) short-lists those that
have news directors (to see if they
produce local news), and are
commercial and viable. Spanish-
language stations are not included.
The exact tally of stations cannot be
the same every year since stations
constantly change ownership or shut
down or both, and news divisions are
not permanent features of local
stations they may be added or
removed. This year, our analysis
included 726 local stations.
-14
2. Other components of total station revenue include trade and barter, production and promotional revenues
3.There are two kinds of advertising in TV, local and national advertising. Local typically makes up about 55% of
station advertising, national the rest. For 2006, both are expected to grow. Veronis Suhler projected local spot
advertising up 6% in 2006 (to almost $15 billion) and national up 15% (to $12.1 billion).
4.The biggest percentage increase was posted by the category Government & Organizations at 182%, though all
the other advertisers posted increases as well. Jon Lafayette, Local TV Ad Sales Rose 10.4 Percent in Third
Quarter, TV Week, December 14, 2006. Also see TVB Release, Local Broadcast TV Ad Revenues up 10.4% in
3rd Quarter, December 14, 2006.
5.Veronis Suhler Stevenson had projected that national spot would rise by 10%, but actual figures indicate that it
dropped by 7.5%. The firm had projected a rise in local spot advertising of 8.5%. t fell 3%.
6.TVB confirmed this ebb of revenues in 2005. According to its report in March 2006, the year saw a drop of
8.8% in local and national spot advertising. And predictably, among the top advertisers, government and
organizations saw the biggest decline indicating the absence of political dollars in a non-election year. Among
the other big advertising categories, the top three (automotives, restaurants and telecommunications) also saw
declines.
-.John M. Higgins, Stations Log Record Windfall; TV Political-Ad Spending Tops $2 Billion, Broadcasting &
Cable, November 6, 2006
%.The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics also released its projections about campaign spending over all.
The 2006 elections were estimated to see 18% growth in spending over the 2002 mid-terms. n 2006, candidates
are expected to have shelled out $3.2 billion, compared to $2.4 billion in 2002.
'.Broadcasting and Cable's estimate of $2 billion in political ad revenues for 2006, as a percentage of Veronis
Suhler's forecast that total ad revenue in 2006 would be $27 billion. f we take TVB's estimate ($1.4 billion),
political ad revenue would be 5%.
10. John Eggerton, TV Stations Revs to Rise $1.5B, says BA, Broadcasting & Cable, May 24, 2006
11.The RTNDA Survey is annual survey of news directors. The latest survey was released in October 2006. t was
conducted by Robert Papper of Ball State University in the last quarter of 2005. n all, 1,120 news directors took
part. A copy may be found in the RTNDA Communicator, October 2006 issue.
12. Robert Papper, By the Numbers: News, Staffing and Profitability Survey, RTNDA Communicator,
October 2006, p. 30
13. Almost a quarter of those surveyed, 24.4%, said they didn't know or couldn't say whether their newscasts
were profitable. Robert Papper, By the Numbers: News, Staffing and Profitability Survey, RTNDA
Communicator, October 2006, p. 28.
14. n what seems like a contradiction, 2004 was the year in which average station revenues (the BA
calculation) were the highest. What could account for this contradictory trend? Could it be that station GM's were
especially aggressive in stressing the need for the newsroom to be profitable and/or to control costs? Or could it
be that there really were more newsroom losses, but that they were offset by political/Olympic revenues? t might
also be unfair to compare the two response rates, since they deal with two totally different methodologies (and
samples).
15. Some 26.1% of news directors affiliated with Fox said they didn't know or couldn't comment on news
profitability. Robert Papper, By the Numbers: News, Staffing and Profitability Survey, RTNDA Communicator,
October 2006, p. 28
-15
16. Robert Feder, Fox Mulling Launch of 10 p.m. Newscast, Sun Times, December 12, 2006. Neal Zoren,
Channel 29 Launches 'The First News at 11,' Daily Times, October 9, 2006. Jesse Noyes, Ch. 56 May Get
Morning Newscast, Boston Herald, November 23, 2006
<$nershi"
The ownership picture for local TV news began to change in 2006, after years of holding fairly steady.
And if the FCC goes forward with plans to deregulate the industry plans stalled in recent years that
landscape may change even more significantly.
A Season of Sales
There are more than 700 local television news stations across the country owned by more than one hundred
different companies.
And in 2006, local television stations changed hands at a level of transaction activity that hasn't been seen since
the late 1990's and early 2000's.
According to a BA Financial Network report released in July 2006, a total of 88 television stations had been sold
in the first six months of 2006, generating a transaction value of $15.7 billion. n 2005, the same period saw the
sale of just 21 stations at a value of $244 million (the total year saw transactions worth $2.86 billion.)
Transaction +alue of T+ Station Sales
2002 - 2006
-16
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Broadcasting & Cable, April 24 2006; BA Press Release, July 20 2006
Most of the 2006 transactions took place from May through July in the smaller markets and among smaller
companies. Companies like Pegasus Communications, Daystar Television Group, Equity Communications,
among many others, sold and bought TV stations in smaller markets like McAllen, Tex., Portland, Maine, and
Tulsa, Okla.
1
And in April a larger player, Media General, bought four stations from NBC for $600 million.
One company that was in the news for its sale of news stations was Emmis Communications. The company went
forward in 2006 with plans, discussed in last year's report, to bow out of the TV business completely to
concentrate on its radio holdings. t will sell the last of its TV stations (New Orleans) in 2007 . t sold its first nine in
2005 for $481 million over their book value. SJL communications, the LN Television group and the Grey
Television group snatched up the Emmis stations to become even larger groups.
Though official totals have not come in yet, the second half of 2006 was active as well, and saw some bigger media
companies enter the sales fray. n August, for example, Raycom Media sold 12 of its stations in nine markets to
the Barrington Broadcast group (this came after acquiring 15 stations from the Liberty Group in the summer of
2005).
As a part of a much larger ownership story in 2006, the Tribune Company was contemplating selling its broadcast
holdings in its plan to overhaul itself (also see Newspaper Ownership). t owns 23 TV stations in the bigger
markets, including three in the top three markets: KTLA in Los Angeles, WGN in Chicago and WPX in New York. n
November 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that the company had begun offering those three stations to
potential buyers.
2
The plan to sell the Los Angeles and New York stations was probably spurred by the fact that the
broadcast licenses were set to expire (in December for the Los Angeles station and June, 2007 for New York).
3
f
the stations were not sold by the expiration dates, Tribune would be in violation of the FCC's cross-ownership
rule. The rules, which Tribune has lobbied against, prohibit ownership of both a newspaper and a television
station in the same market. t owns the Los Angeles Times and Newsday in New York (more below on the FCC
regulations).
Also in late November 2006, Clear Channel Communications announced that it was being sold to an investment
group led by the private equity funds Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners. Better known as the largest radio
company is the U.S., Clear Channel also owns 51 local television stations. As its radio revenues and stock prices
fell in recent years, analysts expected Clear Channel to sell all its television stations to reduce debts (also see
Radio Chapter).
4
n January 2007, the New York Times Company confirmed the sale of its Broadcast Media Group all nine of its
TV stations to a private equity firm for $575 million.
5
The deal, which is expected to close in the first half of the
-1-
year after meeting regulatory approval, exceeded analysts' projections.
6
According to Barron's Weekly, the private
equity firm that bought the stations paid about $150 million more than was expected.
7
When the company first
announced its decision to sell the television unit, in September of 2006, analysts were upbeat about the sale,
viewing it as a smart move that would allow the company to focus on its other assets. And they said it gave other
TV groups a chance to create duopolies in those markets. The television unit accounted for just 4% of total
revenues, and according to a spokesman for the Times Company, the sale would allow the company to focus
more on its print newspaper and digital properties.
Why all the sale activity in 2006? And what does it suggest about the health of the industry?
The sales of stations left analysts feeling good about the local television market as a whole. Many see the sales
as smart business decisions. Selling the stations was one way for companies to trim their low-performing assets
and focus on the cost-effective ones. Companies like Tribune and Clear Channel are a case in point. For the
buyers, on the other hand, adding the stations was seen as a means to improve revenue, cash flow (profits) and
the overall value of the buying groups. Some of the acquisitions added digital capabilities (such as digital weather
broadcasts). Having local TV stations with those capabilities could give companies an edge in the emerging
media market.
The rising level of transactions was also considered an indicator of the overall health of the business. The sales,
like those of the New York Times' stations, showed that private equity firms are quite interested in TV stations.
That, in turn, helped boost television station stocks on Wall Street. ndeed, media reports indicate that the stock
market seems to have a lot of faith in broadcast television, especially in those stations operating in the mid-sized
markets. nvestors apparently believe such stations will prove to be more durable than newspapers, thanks in part
to the popularity of local news broadcasts. Further, the markets they operate in aren't that threatened by the
nternet, which is more of a worry for stations in the biggest markets.
8
The Bocal T+ Ban!sca"e1 *et$or(s Do'inate
More than 90% of the TV stations in the U.S. are affiliates of one of the four biggest television networks ABC,
CBS, Fox Television and NBC (collectively known as the Big Four).
9
That is, they carry national news and
programming produced by those networks.
According to the BA database, NBC and Fox have the largest share of affiliates among the Big Four neck-to-
neck with about 30% each of all network affiliates. CBS comes in third with a 26% share and ABC is fourth with 9%
.
*u'ber of *et$or( Affiliates $ith *e$s Directors
2003
Television *et$or( *u'ber of Affiliate Stations
*B0 2:;
)o& Television 2:8
0BS 89:
AB0 23
Source: BA Media Access Pro, July 2006
A total of 748 local news stations were affiliated with one of the four groups in 2005. That reflects a 10% growth in
network affiliates in the seven years, up from the 680 stations in 1999.
NBC and Fox have seen the largest increase in affiliated stations, adding 31 and 16, respectively, between 1999
and 2005. CBS is not far behind at 14. ABC has the smallest presence in the local-market scene with just 65
affiliates, and as of 2005 had added only 7 stations since 1999.
-1%
et!or6 7!ned and 7perated #tations
The networks themselves o!n only a handful of local television stations known as their 'owned and operated'
(O&O) stations, though usually they are the biggest stations in the biggest markets. That reach would likely have
grown even more had the FCC succeeded in plans earlier in the decade to ease ownership caps. And in 2007, the
FCC is looking again at doing so.
The owned and operated local stations produce a sizable share of the networks' profit, and those stations'
revenues often exceed what the networks generate from their own programming.
Among the Big Four networks, CBS Television owns the most stations, 39. The Fox Television group now follows
with 35. NBC is next with 14, and ABC owns and operates 10.
10
The CBS Corporation has one or more stations in 9 of the top 10 markets in the country. The 35 stations owned
and operated by Fox itself (News Corp.) also include a station or more in 9 of the top 10 markets (reaching
approximately 45% of the country). NBC reaches 7 of the top 10 markets with its O&O's, about 34% of the viewers
in the country, including those who watch its Spanish-language Telemundo stations. ABC stations can be found in 6
of the top 10 markets.
Fox et!or6: Expanding locally
News Corp.'s presence in the local TV marketplace began two decades ago, in 1986. Originally, its national and
international news content came from CNN. But Rupert Murdoch began to change things in 1992, when he
decided to make Fox newscasts look different from the competition. Roger Ailes, who heads the cable channel as
well as the local television group, announced in 2006 that they would no longer buy external news feeds. The
decision worried a number of local-station news directors, given the limited nature of Fox News's overseas
coverage.
11
They may not have to worry for long. n media interviews in October 2006, Murdoch and Ailes said they
were working on building international coverage and on improving the synergy between their local and cable news
operations.
ndeed, many of the local Fox newscasts are borrowing the stylistic elements that have made the Fox News cable
channel a success high-end graphics, sets and a 'down to earth' commentary style. The editorial content,
though, according to Ailes, is under their own control. As he told the Financial Times, we look at talent. and we
look at graphics and marketing. but editorially these stations operate independently.
12
After a substantial amount of talk about it in 2005, Fox in 2006 still did not launch its own national evening
newscast. nstead, it devoted its energies to creating an even stronger morning news presence.
n January 2007, it launched a live national morning show to compete with the other networks' offerings. The hour-
long Morning Show with Mike and Juliet runs a mix of news and entertainment from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. The hosts
are Mike Jerrick and Juliet Huddy.
13
The two were anchoring the (cable) Fox News Channel's popular daytime show
Day Side till September 2006. The new show is meant for all the Fox owned and operated stations, though it
wasn't decided whether it would also air on the Fox affiliates. The show is expected to be more entertainment and
lifestyle focused, rather than hard news, and targeted at a female audience.
The To" Bocal T+ 0o'"anies by evenue
The four commercial networks, ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC are not only among the biggest owners by number of
stations and audience reach. They also dominate the industry based on revenue. That dominance continued in
2006.
The creation of the CBS Corporation in 2006, through a splitting up of the former parent company, Viacom, made it
the second-biggest local-TV group in terms of revenue after Murdoch's News Corp (see Network TV Ownership).
t overtook NBC, which dropped to third place. ABC/Disney overtook Tribune to come in fourth.
-1'
Tribune's drop to fifth place could be attributed to its relinquishing its share in the new CW network, which was
created by CBS and Time Warner (Time Warner, incidentally, is ranked 50 in the BA list of top parent
companies).
The CW network is now all entertainment programming. t is expected that any news on those stations would
initially come from existing partner news departments, such as those that were running news on the former UPN
and WB stations that make up CW. Perhaps, if the network does well, it could build its own news departments or
add stations that air news in the coming years.
To" /arent 0o'"anies by evenue
2003
an( *a'e of 0o'"any
8 *e$s 0or"oration
2 0BS 0or"oration
7 *B0A#-
: AB0ADisney
3 Tribune 0o'"any
2 #annet 0o. Inc.
6 Hearst4Argyle T+ Inc.
I I ;
Belo 0or".
9 Broa!casting %e!ia /artners Inc. ="arent of Univision>
80 0o& -nter"rises Inc.
88 Sinclair Broa!cast #rou" Inc.
82 ayco' %e!ia Inc.
87 BI* Television 0or"oration
8: %e!ia #eneral Inc.
83 Washington /ost 0o'"any
82 -W Scri""s 0o'"any
i i
86
#ray Television Inc.
8; %ere!ith 0or".
89 0lear 0hannel 0o''unications
20 Doung Broa!casting Inc.
Source: BA Media Access Pro, September 2006
The )00 egulations
One big concern facing all television stations is the longstanding question of what kind of federal regulations will be
applied to media ownership. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the body in charge of laying down
the rules, has had no success in arriving at a consensus on critical questions such as putting a cap on how many
media properties a company can own or newspaper-television cross-ownership.
14
The ownership rules were last revised in 2003 and then rejected by a federal court in 2004 (see previous reports).
n June 2006, the FCC finally voted to revisit the controversial topic.
The first stage of that endeavor comprises six public hearings, beginning in California in October 2006. The
second was held in Tennessee in December. As of December, no final schedule for the remaining four had been
-20
established, but the FCC expected the hearings to be held throughout the country to be over by March
2007. The questions that most critics raise are whether the public debates will have any impact and how effective
new regulations will be in a changing media industry.
The latest proceedings also take place in a very different media environment from the last time the FCC was
reviewing ownership rules.
n 2003, big groups like CBS, Clear Channel and News Corp. were clamoring for more properties and for relaxing
the cap on the number of stations a company can own in one area. Others, like the Tribune Company, were
concerned about FCC regulations on newspaper-television cross-ownership.
Heading into 2007, the situation is vastly different. For one thing, Congress passed a law in 2004 that forbids any
network to own a group of stations that reaches more than 39% of the national television audience. That is lower
than the 45% limit set in 2003, but more than the original cap of 35% set in 1996 under the Clinton administration
leading public interest groups to argue that the proposed limits lead to a stifling of local voices.
With the question of limits in national reach off the table, the biggest media companies like CBS and Disney have
less at stake and in fact are sitting out the public debates. ndeed, the Walt Disney Company said in October 2006
that it was not seeking any relaxation of the broadcast ownership rules.
But some big questions still remain. One is the status of newspaper-television cross-ownership. Currently
prohibited, it refers to the common ownership of a full-service broadcast station and a daily newspaper when the
broadcast station's area of coverage (or 'contour' as it is known in the industry) encompasses the newspaper's
city of publication.
15
The other is the capping of local radio and television ownership. While the original rule
prohibited it, currently a company can own at least one television and one radio station in a market. n larger
markets, a single entity may own additional radio stations depending on the number of other independently
owned media outlets in the market.
16
Most broadcasters and newspaper publishers are lobbying to ease or end restrictions on cross-ownership; they
say it has to be the future of the news business. t allows newsgathering costs to be spread across platforms, and
delivers multiple revenue streams in turn. Their argument is also tied to a rapidly changing media consumption
market, and to the diversity of opinions available to the consumer with the rise of the nternet and other digital
platforms.
The Fox Television group, for one, argued that the FCC rules are archaic and counterproductive and that
viewers have a plethora of viewpoints available today. The Tribune Company, which has benefited from its
waiver of cross-ownership restrictions for its newspapers and TV stations in New York and Los Angeles, also
wants the rules overturned. The company says the rules prevent the public from getting high-quality programming,
and contend that the growth of alternative news weeklies, Web sites and blogs ensures a diversity of news
sources. Some may also think that their stations would be worth more if local newspapers were potential buyers.
The arguments against relaxing media ownership regulations are put forth by some powerful consumer unions
and other interest groups. They say that consolidation in any form inevitably leads to a lack of diversity of opinion.
For them, cross-ownership limits the choices for the consumer, inhibits localism and gives too much media power
to one entity.
Professional and workers guilds of the communication industry (the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation
of TV and Radio Artists among others) would like the FCC to keep in mind the independent voice, and want a
quarter of all prime-time programming to come from independent producers. The Children's Media Policy
Coalition suggested that the FCC limit local broadcasters to a single license per market, so that there is enough
original programming for children. Other interest groups like the National Association of Black Owned
Broadcasters are worried about what impact the rules might have on station ownership by minorities.
As a footnote to the localism debate, the Sinclair Broadcast group took two controversial steps in 2006. First, it
eliminated all of its newscasts on its WB (now Fox Television's My Network TV) stations.
17
n addition, its main
news operation in Baltimore, News Central, ceased producing live newscasts and began focusing on supplying
-21
taped news packages to the other Sinclair stations (acting like a network to its affiliates). Many of the remaining
Sinclair stations will continue to 'outsource' their news. n Las Vegas, Pittsburgh and Raleigh, for example,
stations are all sharing newscasts to lower costs and reap ad-sales benefits. Those stations are contracting their
network affiliates to produce their news.
18
According to Sinclair executives, the main reason for the changes was economic. By canceling the newscasts, and
reformatting News Central, Sinclair will save millions of dollars.
Critics argue that using such a centralized news arrangement defeats the point of local TV news. As the TV-news
consultant Valerie Hyman is quoted saying, Too much of the news came from a place where none of the viewers
live. t was like dumbing down a newspaper.
19
Whatever the timeline, the question of media ownership promises to remain contentious.
)ootnotes
1.Examples culled from the list of television transactions that appear in the weekly section called Deals in
Broadcasting and Cable, January to July 2006 issues. Online at: www.broadcastingcable.com.
2.Thomas Mulligan & Jim Puzzanghera, Buyers are Sought for 3 Big City TV Stations, Los Angeles Times,
November 10, 2006
3.The Tribune Company asked for a renewal of the Los Angeles station license, KTLA-TV, in August 2006 until the
final sale of the stations was decided.
4.ncidentally, the Clear Channel sale has implications for the Tribune Company's overhaul. Bain Capital and
Thomas H. Lee have been one of the groups interested in buying off Tribune's newspaper holdings. f they remain
interested, they will have to deal with issues of media cross-ownership as well.
5.Michael Malone, NY Times Co. Finds Stations Buyer, Broadcasting & Cable, January 5, 2007
6.n September 2006 Credit Suisse analysts predicted that revenues from the sales could fetch the NYT
Company up to $280 million. Jon Lafayette, Times Change for TV Group, TV Week, September 18, 2006
-.Andrew Bary, For TV Broadcasters, Picture is mproving, Barron's Weekly, January 15, 2007
%.bid.
'.BA calculation (as of January 2007) 748 of a total of 804 viable stations with news directors are affiliated with
one of the Big Four networks, i.e., 93%.
10.Station tally as of January 23, 2007; See NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox Television Web sites for accurate figures.
11.Julia Angwin, After Riding High with Fox News, Murdoch Aide Has Harder Slog, Wall Street Journal, October
3, 2006
12.nterview Transcript: Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, Financial Times, October 6, 2006
13.The show's official Web site - http://www.mandjshow.com/
14.One of the reasons for the delay was the FCC itself. t is governed by five commissioners, three from the
president's party and two from the opposition party. A Republican, Kevin Martin, took over as chairman in March
2005, but was able to secure a majority only when the Republican Robert McDowell was appointed a
commissioner in June 2006. Martin was re-nominated as chairman in September 2006.
-22
15. The Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Prohibition (1975), obtained from the FCC Web site. Online
at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.html
16. Radio/TV Cross-Ownership Restriction (1970), obtained from the FCC Web site. Online
at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.html
1-. t should be noted that newscasts were not affected on the remaining Sinclair stations, which have their
own news operations.
1%. n Las Vegas, KVWB started a newscast produced by the NBC affiliate KVBC, featuring the NBC anchors
and correspondents. n Pittsburgh, WPGH replaced its news with news supplied by the NBC affiliate WXP.
Allison Romano, Sinclair Rethinks News Mission, Broadcasting & Cable, March 20, 2006.
1'. Allison Romano, Sinclair Rethinks News Mission, Broadcasting & Cable, March 20, 2006
*e$s Invest'ent
The evidence takes some assembling, and there are contradictions, but signs have emerged of some change in
the attitude that has led to the thinning-out of local TV newsrooms in recent years a trend that has bedeviled the
industry and, many news directors believe, accelerated the decline in audience.
For the latest years for which there is data, staffing appears to be up, and budgets appear not to be pressed.
There are also signals that independent stations may be getting away from news, leaving it to the networks and
their affiliates, which could concentrate the audience to a few newsrooms.
t would be wrong to overstate the case. The number of hours of news produced is also at a record high. And there
is more pressure than ever to produce news for the Web, as well.
Still, taken together, the evidence points to a growing sense that for the stations that do news, it increasingly will
be the franchise that will define their stations.
A'ount of *e$s on Bocal T+
What is the average amount of news being aired on local TV? On any weekday in 2005, local stations aired 3.8
hours of news. That was up from 3.6 hours reported in 2004 and represented a record high.
1
Those are the results
from the latest annual survey conducted for the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) by Bob
Papper of Ball State University.
2
The amount of news a station produces is a difficult matter to weigh. While more news content means more
journalism, it can also stretch news operations thin, give journalists less time to work on stories, and lead to more
drive-by coverage of stories that are easy to get but less informative than more difficult enterprise reporting.
Many stations seemed, for now, to feel they had reached their limit. The survey reveals that more than half the
news directors surveyed (55.9%) had no plans to change the amount of news on their stations.
But the growth in news content is hardly over. More than a third of news directors, 36.3%, said their stations were
planning to add to the amount of news that was already airing on their station.
3
Hardly any just 1.4% said
they planned to scale back.
-23
And the evidence suggests they will go forward with their plans. Looking at 2005, expectations, if anything, were
more cautious than the reality turned out to be.
4
n 2005, 36% of all news directors said they had increased the
amount of news on their station. Yet only about a quarter (24.9%) had planned, in 2004, to make those increases.
Similarly, three-fourths of news directors surveyed in 2006 reported running the same amount of news in 2005
mirroring the percent that a year earlier planned on producing the same amount.
5
But more significantly, a greater
number increased the amount of news and fewer reduced it than had been planning to. Only 1.8% of news
directors reported reducing the amount, but 8.8% had planned on doing so.
There are also significant differences in who is adding news.
Viewers will find much more news on network-affiliated stations, which averaged 4 hours of news each weekday in
2005. The nonaffiliated stations averaged just 1.8 hours of news on a weekday a big change from 2004, when
the average for such stations was 3.5 hours.
For now, the numbers suggest that the era of every station trying to get into the news business may have eased
off, and that news may be increasingly a province of network affiliation (and Spanish-language stations, which are
seeing growth and success in their newscasts). A half-dozen years ago, as stations began to see audiences
shrink, some were predicting a shakeout in news, with only one or two stations in each market staying in the news
business in a significant way. For a while the opposite happened. The current shift may be a natural response to
the declining ratings and share numbers of recent years. n time, it could be a significant change a shakeout in
news after all.
The other trend, in the counter direction, is for network affiliates to produce more newscasts for independent
stations from a central newsroom. That is what is occurring (as noted in Audience) in markets like Boston where
the NBC affiliate WHDH-TV is producing a newscast for the CW affiliate (WLV-TV) in the same market. Both
stations are owned by the same group, Sunbeam Television Corp.
ndeed, the RTNDA surveys show that a fair number of news directors report providing their news content to
another TV station. n 2005, 21% of news directors reported doing so. That is slightly lower than the year before
(23%), but higher than 2003 (18%). The survey's author, Bob Papper, estimates that more than 150 newsrooms
are now producing news for multiple stations, a significant trend in the industry. According to the survey, stations
are more likely to provide news to other stations if they are in a larger market and if they have a large staff.
n one sense, the practice represents stations giving consumers what they want the choice of news when and
where they want it. t also, no doubt, saves stations money to amortize the costs of their newsrooms and create
more revenue opportunities. But the pressures on news people and newsrooms as they have to produce more
newscasts are unmistakable.
*e$s for <ther /latfor's
n addition to producing news for other stations, news directors have a host of other platforms they must think
about as well. Those include the station's own Web site, other Web sites, cable TV channels or local radio (for
more on the ways local TV is moving beyond the television screen, see Digital).
Of all the platforms, the station's Web site commands the lion's share. n the RTNDA Survey released in October
2006, 80% of all news directors surveyed said they provided content to the station Web site. That figure has risen
every year (it was 70% in 2004 and 66% the year before).
<ther <utlets for Bocal T+ *e$s 0ontent by Affiliation
2005
-24
Design Your Own Chart
Source: 2006 RTNDA/Ball State University Survey Based on survey responses of news directors
Local radio stations are the other big outlet for content 44% of all news directors share their content with radio
stations (roughly the same level as the past two years). Radio is followed, respectively, by other televisions
stations and cable TV channels.
T+ *e$s Bu!gets
One of the major issues in local TV news in recent years has been the trend toward stations producing more news
without increasing their staff to do it. That stretching of resources translated into a thinning of the product. Stations
did fewer reporter packages and less original reporting and enterprise, relying more on second-hand material.
(See Annual Report 2004 and 2005). What is happening now, according to the latest data?
Stations seem to have realized that their product was suffering, and for the latest year available, 2005, don't
report any reduction in their news budgets.
That year, news directors either increased their budgets (46%) or kept them the same (35%). Only about 1 in 10
(12%) said that they had cut their budgets.
Network affiliates invested much more in news than the other commercial stations (just as they were also
producing more news). Only about 1 in 10 (11.4%) of network-affiliated news directors reported cutting their
budgets in 2005. Most of them (47.6%) instead had increased the budgets. About a third (34.6%) kept to the
same level as the previous year.
Staff SiIe
As an indicator of quality, the number of people in newsrooms is often even more telling than money. Over all,
average newsroom staff size increased in 2005. On average 36.4 people were employed in the participating
newsrooms, the second-highest level of full-time staff since the survey began in 1993. t also represents a fourth
consecutive year of growth in average full-time staff, and the second-highest staffing level since Papper began his
research.
-25
Bocal T+ *e$sroo' Staff Bevels
1998-2005, Average Number of Full Time Employees
Design Your Own Chart
Source: RTNDA/Ball State University Surveys Based on survey responses of news directors
f we add in part-time staff, the total average staff size (41 people) is the highest recorded in the RTNDA survey.
ndeed, 2005 saw an increase in part-time staff across all stations, unlike the decline in 2004.
6
The growth wasn't very even, however. While the number increased among affiliated stations, it plummeted at
other commercial stations.
n 2005, the average newsroom staff size at an affiliated station was 38 people (up from 37 in 2004). Unlike
previous years, staffing at affiliate stations was stronger than predicted in 2005. More than a third of news
directors reported increasing their staff (39%) versus 24% that had planned to do so when asked a year earlier.
Only 13% reported reducing their staff size.
At other commercial stations, the figure was 20 down from 34 in 2004.
That drop in staff levels might be a reflection on non-affiliates eliminating newscasts or contracting other local
stations to provide news for them. The arrangement in Boston, where Sunbeam Television added a newscast on
its CW affiliate WLV using the resources of its NBC affiliate WHDH, is one example. t consolidated operations so
that one studio was used for all news programming. The new 10 p.m. newscast on the CW affiliate, an early
version of WHDH's 11 p.m. program, was produced at a fraction of the typical cost and by adding fewer than
usual employees.
7
And if the news directors stuck to their plans, the disparity between the affiliates and others would continue in
2006.
Of the news directors surveyed at the network affiliates, more than half (56%) planned to keep their staff size the
same and one third (34%) hoped to hire more people. Less than 1 in 10 planned to cut staff or didn't respond to
the question.
8
0hanges in Staff SiIe1 Big : Affiliates
2003
-26
Staff SiIe 0hanges Increase Sa'e Decrease
In 2007 7:% 38% 8:.9%
-&"ecte! in 200: 78.2 36.6 7.;
In 200: 77.2 :8.2 8;.3
-&"ecte! in 2003 27.3 37.3 ;.9
In 2003 7;.2 :;.2 87.7
-&"ecte! in 2002 7:.: 32 7.2
Source: RTNDA/Ball State University Surveys Note:
Based on survey responses of news directors
The responses were very different from news directors at the other commercial stations. A full 75% did not plan
on any changes to their staffs. Of the rest, an equal amount planned to reduce or increase staff size (12.5% each)
Salaries
One interesting wrinkle to newsroom resources was that increases appear for the moment to be more in bodies
than in salaries. Even though the size of the newsroom increased, and news directors invested in more news on
the air, TV news salaries barely changed in 2005. They increased just two-tenths of a percent, according to the
RTNDA/BSU Salary Survey (June 2006). Things weren't helped by inflation rates, which were 3.4% for the year.
That meant real wages in TV news fell by 3.2%.
News directors themselves, however, continued to fare much better than their newsrooms. Using the RTNDA data
to compare median salaries, the average on-air positions (news anchors, weathercasters and sports anchors)
have seen an increase of about 33% in salaries over the past 10 years (1995 to 2005). The increase among all
management positions was just slightly more at about 37%. Compared to those two groups, however, news
directors have seen an increase of 56% over the past 10 years (1995 to 2005).
Salary 0o'"arisons <ver Ti'e
2005, Median Salaries, TV News
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
'ail
Mews Asst. Managing Exec. Mews Mews Weather Sp Director News Dir. Editor
Producer Producer Anchor -caster Am
/osition
OP2003
Source: 2006 RTNDA/Ball State University Survey
Based on survey responses of news directors
Design Your Own Chart
-2-
n other findings, an average new hire with no full-time experience would earn about $21,400. Tape editors were
at the low end of the totem pole. They would join at the lowest average salary, $20,500.
Wo'en in the Bocal *e$sroo'
n what was said to be a sign that women were finally getting their due in the newsroom, Katie Couric became the
first solo female broadcast anchor in September 2006, for CBS (see Network TV Audience).
But that 'breakthrough' holds only for national network news. n local news, women have for long been the face of
the newsroom. According to the RTNDA, women accounted for more than half of all anchor positions in 2005
57%. Even a decade ago, in 1996, 54% of anchors were women.
9
ndeed, the most recent survey of news
directors in July 2006, commissioned for the RTNDA, does show that virtually all newsrooms now employ women
(97%) and that they made up 40% of the TV news workforce as of 2005.
10
Women are also increasing their ranks behind the scenes. There are now more women executive producers,
reporters, news producers and writers. ndeed, in 2005, the number of women TV news directors heading their
own newsrooms rose by 25%, reversing a two-year drop. And, according to Bob Papper, their salaries are at par
with their male (news director) colleagues.
Such women, though, are generally found in smaller newsrooms (with staffs of up to 10 people). The biggest
newsrooms have the lowest incidence of women news directors.
Further, the percentage of women in the total television workforce over time has remained essentially stagnant.
According to RTNDA data, the share of women in the TV newsroom has fluctuated by less than two percentage
points between 1999 and 2005. They make up less than half 40% of the newsroom staff.
Wo'en in the *e$sroo'
899942003. As a /ercentage of Total Wor(force in All Television *e$s
Dear /ercent of Wo'en
M8999 :0%
2000 79.6
2008 7;.2
2002 79.7
2007 79.8
M200: 79.7
2003 :0
Source: RTNDA/Ball State University Annual Surveys on Women and Minorites
Nonetheless, women journalists are increasing their ranks. According to surveys conducted by Profs. David
Weaver and G. Cleveland Wihoit for their book The American Journalist in the 21st Century, which were
conducted over three decades, women made up 33% of all journalists in 2002, up from 20% in 1971, the year of
their first survey.
11
The journalistic trend reflects the broader trend of an increasing number of women in the general labor force. n
2006, approximately 60% of women were in the labor force, a significant increase over the 41% of 1970.
12
)ootnotes
1. The average amount of news rose on Saturday and Sunday as well, by six minutes each. Bob Papper, By the
Numbers: News, Staffing and Profitability Survey, RTNDA Communicator, October 2006, p. 24
-2%
2.The RTNDA Survey is an annual survey of news directors. The latest survey was released in 2006. t was
conducted by Robert Papper of Ball State University in the last quarter of 2005; 1,120 news directors took part. A
copy may be found in the RTNDA Communicator, October 2006 issue.
3.Bob Papper, By the Numbers: News, Staffing and Profitability Survey, RTNDA Communicator, October 2006
4.We compare one year's responses to what news directors expect for the forthcoming year in terms of news, to
what actually occurred as reported a year later. The latest survey also asked whether the amount of news
programming increased in 2005. The respondents in the RTNDA survey are not exactly the same every year, so
the comparisons are only suggestive of a trend.
5.n the 2006 survey, 62% of news directors surveyed said they had the same amount of news airing as the
previous year. n 2005, 60% of them were planning on maintaining the level of news.
6.n 2005, average part-time staff at all TV stations rose to 4.7 (from 3 in 2004). t increased more in affiliate
stations (averaging 4.8, from 3 the previous year) than at other commercial stations (an average of 3.6, versus 3.5
the year before). Bob Papper, By the Numbers: News, Staffing and Profitability Survey, RTNDA Communicator,
October 2006.
-.Robert Gavin, Let the Battle Begin at 10, Boston Globe, December 19, 2006
%.3.2% said they planned to decrease staff and 6.4% couldn't say/didn't know about changes to staff size.
'.Star Tribune, The Disappearing Male TV Anchor, September 18, 2006. The author quotes RTNDA figures.
10.Bob Papper, Year of Extremes RTNDA Annual Survey of Women and Minorities, RTNDA Communicator,
July/August 2006
11.The book was released in 2006 and included their latest survey, conducted in 2002. The two authors, along
with the other co-authors, are professors at ndiana University.
12.2006 statistic from Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 5, 2007 press release - online at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm. Historical Figures from the US Census Bureau, National Data
Book Chart on Civilian Population--Employment Status by Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1970 to 2005
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/labor_force_employment_earnings/labor_force_status/
Digital
When it came to moving online, local TV news has historically looked tardy and vulnerable. But that may be
changing.
Over the last year initiatives by local TV news stations were less about convergence with newspapers and more
about offerings through newer technologies. Local TV content can now be accessed as podcasts, on cell phones,
on outdoor screens and streamed over the nternet.
One of the biggest growth areas has been in local stations' Web sites. All the Big Four networks have worked on
their local station sites, and the results have been encouraging.
The CBS Television group, for example, has overhauled its local Web sites over the past year, increasing the
amount of available video streams fourfold. That has resulted in a huge increase in online ad revenues.
1
The Fox Television group rolled out re-designed local Web sites in January 2007. The network undertook a
yearlong project to centralize the sites they have a similar look and centralized technical operations, and all are
-2'
seen as stand-alone businesses for the group. They offer local information and community forums, in addition to
local news.
2
A survey released by Ball State University's Bob Papper for the RTNDA in May 2006 suggests that a Web-based
component is now a norm for local TV stations, though what it consists of may vary greatly from site to site.
According to the survey almost all news directors say their local TV stations now have Web sites, and 98% of
those sites include local news (showing that local news continues to be a critical component of local television on
any platform).
On average, about three people in the newsroom staff are dedicated solely to working on the Web site, up from
about one person the previous year. And news directors find they are increasingly dividing staff time between the
two entities on an average, they said 34.4% of their newsroom staff helps with the Web site, up from 32.5% the
year before.
Stations that have a large Web staff (according to the survey, ABC affiliates had larger Web staffs than other
affiliates) tend also to have their news directors in charge of the sites. The percentage of news directors who say
they are in charge of content on their Web sites has increased from 15.6% in 2004 to 20.3% in 2005.
What are the effects of a local Web presence?
One effect, various data suggest, is some positive impact on the bottom line.
Re%enues
According to RTNDA the survey, the percentage of news directors who said their local TV Web sites were making
a profit rose from 15% in 2004 to 24% in 2005 and if you look at profits by market size, every single market
group went up as well.
What's more, news directors reporting a loss and those who reported breaking even fell from the previous year.
(But it's also worth noting that half the news directors surveyed were not sure how well their station Web sites
were doing.)
Bocal Television Web sites
2003
%a(ing
/rofit
Brea(ing
-ven
Sho$ing a
Boss
Don?t Cno$
All Television 2:% 82.2% 87% 30.;%
%ar(ets 8423 73.9 3.8 82.; :2.2
%ar(ets 22430 70 ; 2 32
%ar(ets 384800 2:.2 83.: 87.; :2.2
%ar(ets 8084830 86.: 88.2 28.6 :9.7
%ar(ets 838H 83.: 20.3 3.8 39
Source: Bob Papper, "TV Web sites Helping the Bottom Line," RTNDA Communicator, May 2006 Note:
Based on survey responses of news directors
Another research group, Borrell Associates nc., which measures local online advertising, found that local TV
broadcasters lead the way when it comes to online ad revenues the figure is projected to be $7.7 billion in
2007.
3
-30
But as broadcast television groups expand their digital properties, the question of revenue sharing and the
relationship with their local affiliates is something to consider.
n September 2006, ABC cut a deal with its affiliates to stream some prime-time shows, including ABC News
videos, on local Web sites. The local affiliates will be able to carry clips from ABC's World News and Good
Morning America on their station Web sites, and eventually even add local content. n exchange, the affiliates will
promote the ABC streams both on the air and on their respective Web sites.
That was a compromise reached by the two sides in response to an earlier decision by ABC to stream its content
free on its Web site the day after its initial broadcast. Affiliate stations weren't happy if viewers could watch ABC
programming without having to tune into their local stations, they worried about the impact the move would have
on their revenues. They argued that since they help publicize the programming, they should get some share of the
revenue that it generates on other platforms.
Fox Television also faced similar concerns when it wanted to move into new media; it eventually made an
agreement in April 2006 to share earnings with its local affiliates. Their deal allows affiliates to get an (not made
public) portion of additional revenues made from reruns on other platforms, for up to a year after they air the
program.
4
CBS has come up with another novel digital arrangement. n October 2006, it hooked up with Yahoo nc. to make
local news content from its 16 stations that run local news available to stream on the Yahoo Web site. While exact
financial details were not available, Yahoo is expected to share in the revenue from advertising the video clips.
5
Such revenue-sharing agreements seem to be the future for big television groups as they try out new delivery
platforms without diminishing their television viewership or straining ties with their local affiliates.
Audience
How about audience? To what degree are they using these sites, and is there an impact on television viewership?
One survey suggests that consumers are getting more local news on the nternet, but at least so far, are not using
it to replace local TV newscasts. A study released in July 2006, conducted by the market research firm Crawford
Johnson & Northcott, found that 75% of nternet users watch a local newscast at least twice a week. More than
half said they tried to watch it daily.
6
The relationship was reciprocal: 68% of the consumers surveyed said they followed up on local newscasts by
going to the station Web site. The study also found that TV stations had an edge over print in driving consumers to
their sites.
News executives at all those stations have also seen that giving viewers local news when they want it helps build
brand loyalty and that translates into ratings. Their hypothesis is that when consumers switch on their TV they
will turn to the same station they were going to online and it seems to be a valid theory. According to Bill Fee,
general manager of WCPO-TV in Cincinnati, Ohio, We've been doing it for 10 years, and our ratings have gone
up, not down. f you give consumers the choice. it gives you the chance to grow.
Web sites can apparently help local TV stations not just by providing local news on demand, but by generating a
sense of personal interaction. General manager Robert Klingle of WHAS-TV in Louisville, Kentucky says stations
look to their Web sites to build on relationships with their viewers. That can be done through membership options,
e-mail alerts and viewer comment/feedback sections, among other things. Fox-owned KDFW-TV in Dallas-Ft.
Worth, Texas, not only has staff blogs that viewers can comment on, but also hosts blogs for its viewers in a
community section on its Web site.
7
As a part of the report his year, the Project analyzed 38 different news Web sites everything from online-only
sites to blogs to sites rooted in traditional media like newspapers and cablein September 2006 and in February
2007. That included two from local TV news, KNG5.com, in Seattle, and CBS11tv.com, the local CBS affiliate in
Dallas-Forth Worth (please see the broader discussion of the Typology breakdown).
-31
CI*# 3 =$$$.(ing3.co'>
The Web site of Seattle's Belo-owned local television station, KNG 5, stands apart from the average local-TV
Web site. ts content, unlike many other local TV sites, is highly local. There is weather, a link to a free classified
section, a box, updated roughly every hour, that spotlights developing local stories or other advisories, followed by
three top stories that are presented as a package with headline, brief story synopsis, picture and at least one
video clip.
But that layout is not a must. KNG5.com earned its highest marks for being custo'iIable. A button at the top of
the page, Customize KNG5.com allows users to choose your news, by constructing an individual news page
with headlines they choose form KNG5.com as well as other sites. The site also allows users to do advanced
searches to find what they want on the site. And if you'd rather not come to the site, it will come to you via RSS,
Podcast or even your mobile phone (a feature available on only on a handful of sites examined).
A major site redesign at the start of 2007 gave even more weight to the user. n October 2006, there was no way
for the user to add their own voiceno way to comment or rate a story or even access a "most emailed" list. By
February 2007, visitors who become members (something they are prompted to do after a few clicks on the site)
are encouraged to contribute to the site's content. One of the headers along the top of the page along with
news, weather and sports is a link called interact, and invites users to contribute photographs, engage in
forums to discuss news, politics, sports and the outdoors, comment on King 5 blog entries, and contribute to the
local calendar of events. With no way to directly email station staff, have a live discussion, rate a story, or see a
list of the most emailed or linked to repots, there is still some room to grow. Overall, it falls in the mid-low level
here for "artici"ation. But this is a site that is focusing more than many others on users.
The redesigned KNG 5 site also increased its use of 'ulti'e!ia forms for its content, putting it in the mid-high
category here. Just over half of the content on the homepage is text-based. The rest features video news clips,
slide shows and interactive graphics like a two-way calendar of local events.
KNG 5 does not place nearly as much emphasis as some other sites on its own bran!e! material or content
control. t fell in the high mid-range of sties studied. There is a place, called nvestigators, designated to its news
team's original reporting But these reports, primarily local in focus, appear only periodically: on January 30, 2007,
the top 10 stories listed on the nvestigator page were dated January 23, 2007 back to November 21, 2006. Over
all, the primary source of content, for both video and narrative stories, is the Associated Press. KNG 5 reporters
have bylines for about half of the local news content, with the AP and other contributing sources (such as
KGW.com) filling in the rest.
The site scored at the low mid level for !e"th. That, given the paucity of this characteristic in the sites studied, still
ranks it better than many others. The site updates its content every hour, but again it is primarily with wire copy
that does not offer many links either inside or along-side the story to provide readers with additional information.
Finally, for now anyway, visitors can use the site with little demanded of them. Registration is optional (though
encouraged), all content is free including the archives and there are on an average of just five ads on the page.
0BS88tv =$$$.cbs88tv.co'>
The Web site of the local CBS affiliate in Dallas-Forth Worth also stood out among local TV sites for the its web
offerings. CBS11tv.com placed highest emphasis on customization and on offering content in different media
forms. t also scored in the mid high range for economics, or the level of developing revenue streams.
The site earned lower marks for the depth of its offering and for giving users a chance to participate in the content.
The homepage's upper banner features local weather, traffic and a search tool, which is unusual, because most
sites feature a banner advertisement in that prime homepage property. Below the banner, the Web site usually
calls attention to its lead story with a large headline and picture, often packaged with a video or another
multimedia component. Following the lead story are 10 links to other top stories, a featured slide show, most
popular videos, and a poll of some sort. The right- and left-hand columns of the homepage feature categories of
-32
information (such as local news, politics, and health), more videos, local services like yellow pages, stock
quotes and more.
The site scored in the mid-high range in 'ulti'e!ia. The bulk of the content is a mix of narrative, still photos and
videos (roughly 90%) with some use of slide shows, polls and interactive graphics. And, while just a small portion
of the content comes in these last three forms, the fact that the site uses them at all increases its rank here.
The site has chosen a mix of -options for users to custo'iIe the content, ultimately scoring it in the mid-high
level. The home page comes as is, but with an advanced search option for archived stories. And, it has leapt over
podcasts (not offering them at all) and gone directly to an option for mobile delivery.
One thing it seems to have almost no interest in at the moment is offering "artici"ation options to the user. There
are no user forums, comments or polls. There is no way to email the correspondent of a report, nor are there lists
of the most viewed or emailed stories. There is a section at the bottom of the site that asks readers, Got an dea
for a Story? The link, however, only prompts an e-mail window.
The site also does less than others, to promote its own bran!. A slightly obscured category in the left-hand
column is a link called The nvestigators, which sends a user to CBS11 original reporting, special reports and
consumer news. The work of three reporters is highlighted here, along with a picture. Outside of the nvestigators
section, much of the content on the site comes from the Associated Press. That is true even for some local news
stories, though to a lesser extent than for national and international stories.
One of the more unusual content destinations on the site is a section called nspiring People, which presents a
gallery of videos about acts of kindness and heroism. The site also offers three lifestyle sections (beauty & style,
family, and new baby) aimed at niche audiences, primarily girls and young women.
Most content on the site is free, though users do need to pay for material that is more than a month old. Their
biggest hope for revenue, though, seems to come in the advertising realm. We found an average of 15 ads on the
homepage, the bulk of which were not tied to any kind of self-promotion.
Bocal T+ -lection *e$s1 )in!ing an <nline *iche
Elections proved to be not just a cash cow for local TV (see Economics) but also a chance for it to make the most
of online platforms.
Many of the biggest television groups, such as NBC and CBS, made concentrated efforts to beef up their local sites
with election coverage something they were only experimenting with in previous elections.
And their efforts seemed well rewarded. According to nternet Broadcasting, which manages many of the
broadcast network Web sites, local TV station Web sites drew viewers in record numbers on Election Day,
November 7, 2006.
The firm released traffic data for 79 TV station Web sites the day after the elections, and claimed that a record 3.5
million unique visitors turned to local sites to view election results. That is a huge spike in the amount of traffic
those sites usually get increases ranging from 50% to 150%.
8
One of the ways that stations used their Web sites was to offer live video streams of candidate speeches, many in
their entirety, which would have been much too long for any half-hour on-air broadcast. As Lane Beauchamp,
managing editor of the CBS TV Stations Digital Media Group, put it, the nearly limitless inventory of the Web
made it possible to carry nearly all speeches online.
Many of the sites also offered other voter information, such as guides to all local and state races sometimes
running into thousands of candidates and to local ballot measures.
Some CBS stations also streamed exclusive content on their Web sites, or webcasts. CBS-owned KCNC-TV in
Denver offered a webcast for four hours on Election Day, in the afternoon (before its evening newscast on TV). n
-33
Boston, CBS-owned WBZ TV had post-election analysis and debate on its Web site. After the station's on-air
coverage ended, viewers were urged to go the Web site, where the lead anchor and political analysts carried on
their analysis.
As Steve Schwaid, vice president of news and programming for the NBC-owned Television Stations Group, put it,
Online is truly becoming a world of its own. And there was a series of innovative measures to make the Web site
election coverage stand out on its own.
n Pennsylvania, the NBC affiliate WGAL-TV, apart from posting text and video of its on-air stories, had a number
of informative features. An ad-watch feature used evidence to debunk claims made by candidates and let
viewers come to their own conclusions. The site's most popular offering turned out to be a how to feature that
taught voters about the new electronic voting machines. That video feature alone was streamed more than 10,000
times in the three days leading up to the elections.
9
Hearst-Argyle's staff used their local-station Web sites to
solicit voter questions for their on-air debates and analysis. WRC-TV, the NBC owned and operated station in
Washington D.C., tried to get viewers to interact with the site. The editors put up a video box, which let users
upload their own videos and comments about the election.
The growth in traffic to local Web sites is ample proof for local TV stations that the Web, if used creatively, can be
an important tool to for retaining audience. What is not so clear is the extent to which the sites can offer a much-
desired additional revenue stream.
Digital T+ Trans'ission an! %ulticasting
While digital platforms might be the future, one concern that has to be addressed before they get there is digital
transmission of television signals. The term refers to the technology by which a station can transmit its
programming on more than one channel multicasting, as it's called. For example, multicasting is what enables
HBO to have HBO 1 through 4 on a digital cable system, rather than the single HBO of old.
nvestment in the new digital technology, therefore, implies the eventual end of the conventional analog, one-
channel-per-station version of television. The switch to multicasting (it was introduced in 1996) has created two
main factions in the television marketplace the broadcasters who support the move and the cable industry,
which oppose it.
n 2006, local broadcasters and the cable industry continued to fight over the question.
10
The National Association
of Broadcasters (NAB) argued for six digital channel streams for each station. n addition, the broadcasters
wanted a must carry provision that would make it mandatory for cable operators to carry all those streams on
their stations.
The cable companies, organized through the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), don't want that to
happen. f the provision is approved by Congress, cable companies will face shelf space problems that will
inevitably force them to discard cable programming to make room for all the broadcast streams. The cable
industry argues that such a move is protectionist and puts them at a serious disadvantage.
Though the FCC deferred the vote on multicasting in June 2006, the debate is bound to get more intense as the
deadline for the switch to digital transmission nears. n February 2006, President Bush signed into law legislation
that sets February 17, 2009 as the official shut-off date for analog TV transmission and the start of the age of all-
digital.
All developments however, ultimately hinge on the 2008 elections. And with the Democrats having taken control of
Congress in November 2006, things are again in a flux. According to trade magazines, Democrats are considered
more sympathetic to broadcasters and more consumer-conscious. Ed Markey, the Democratic chairman of the
House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the nternet, is said to be amenable of multicast must carry
and could push for the February 2009 date. But he has also spoken about how consumers need to be properly
educated and equipped beforehand and wants more money to ensure this.
11
-34
Some believe it would be difficult to overemphasize the importance of this debate as it relates to TV news. What
will TV stations do with all those channels? Among the options are more news, and that potentially makes local TV,
where more people get their news than from any other platform, an always-on always-available option. That could
further spread the audience, cannibalizing from other stations' newscasts.
t could also further spread thin the news operations. Yet it also means you could have a dedicated news junkie
audience for local news on TV, rather than a casual one. On the other hand, if local cable channels do not carry
the new channels, the new ones may never have the potential to gather much audience or advertising in the first.
)ootnotes
1.Daisy Whitney, Election Content Explodes, TV Week, November 6, 2006
2.Paige Albiniak, Fox Group Revamps Web Strategy, Broadcasting & Cable, January 8, 2007
3.Borrell Associates nc., Outlook for 2007: Pac-Man Pace for Local Online Ads, Annual Report, September 2006
4.Tom Lowry, Giving Local TV Stations a Break, Business Week, April 24, 2006
5.Viewers will be able to see about 10 to 20 breaking news clips and features from CBS stations in New York,
Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston. Yahoo to show local CBS news clips, San Jose
Business Journal, October 16, 2006
6.Katy Bachman, Web Not Replacing Local TV news, TV Week, August 16, 2006
-.Deborah Potter, Feeding the Beast: The 24/7 News Cycle, RTNDA Communicator, December 2006
%.Katy Bachman, TV Stations' Web Election Results Smash Traffic Records, Media Week, November 8, 2006
'.Daniel P. O'Donnell, News Director, WGAL-TV. E-mail correspondence, November 15, 2006
10.Because digital television allows more information to be packed into the allotted signal using compression,
multiple channels can be transmitted in the same bandwidth instead of just one. The Telecommunications Act of
1996 allocated extra spectrum to television stations to ensure broadcasters a future in digital and enhanced
television services.
11.John Eggerton, Musical Chairs: Dems Take Over, Broadcasting & Cable, January 15, 2007; John Eggerton,
Markey Expects 'Hard' DTV Date to Move, Broadcasting & Cable, December 5, 2006
/ublic Attitu!es
Local TV news was the subject of many public surveys in 2006. And despite the problems with ratings, it came out
looking relatively strong in all them.
%ost /o"ular *e$s Destination
Local TV remains by the far the most popular choice to get news. That was true irrespective of age and income.
The Radio & Television News Directors Foundation (RTNDF) survey on the Future of the News, released in
October 2006, found that 65.5% of the public gets news from Local TV. That was far ahead of the next most
popular choices, the local newspaper and network TV news (both approximately 28%).
-35
%ost /o"ular *e$s Destinations
2002
*e$s Source /ercentage of /eo"le
Local TV News 65.5%
Bocal *e$s"a"er 2;.:%
*ational *et$or( T+ *e$s 2;.7%
Bocal a!io *e$s /rogra's 8:.6%
Internet 88.2%
*ational *e$s"a"er 7.;%
So'e"lace -lse 8.7%
Source: RTNDF Survey of the Future of the News, October 2006
Note: Percentage of respondents citing the news source as their major source of news
People say, among other things, that local TV news does not mix opinion or talking heads with news. When asked
to rank all the different news media depending on whether they thought it was definitely news, local evening TV
newscasts came out on top again (a rank of 4.4 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 meant that the program was
definitely news). The score was comparable to that of network news, the cable news channels and local radio
newscasts.
1
Earlier in the year, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press biennial news consumption survey, which
looks at local TV news consumption going back more than a decade, also found local TV is the most regularly
watched news source among all the television news media. At 54%, more people regularly watch Local TV than
Cable TV news (34%), network TV nightly news (28%) or network TV morning news (23%).
Why is local news more popular than other sources of news? Part of the answer may lie in the topic areas that
people go looking for when they want news. News about the weather tops the interest scale in the RTNDF survey,
scoring 4.2 out of 5, and that is one area that local news is tailored for. Other topic areas people care about are
features about the community they live in and stories about crime both local TV specialties. Those two
categories scored 3.5 and 3.4 out of 5 on the interest scale that asked them how much they really cared about the
subject area.
The Pew survey also found, as we saw in ratings, a slow decline in viewership over time. n 2006, the 54% of
people who said they watch local TV news reflected a drop from 59% in 2004, and a sharp decrease from the
initial survey, in 1993, when 77% of those surveyed were regularly watching local TV news.
Questions on 0re!ibility
And in what could be bad news for the local news marketing efforts, most of the public can't tell the difference
between their local newscasts. Most also haven't noticed the tactics stations have used to entice them or changes
in staff or coverage in the newscasts they watch the most.
2
ndeed, more than 60% of those surveyed said TV newscasts look pretty much the same. Only about 11% noticed
any changes to staff or coverage, and 75% said they had noticed no new efforts made by their stations to get
their attention.
-36
The public is also concerned about the impact of advertisers and business on their TV newscasts. nstances of
sponsored segments posing as genuine news stories have recently been the subject of much discussion (see
sidebar), and that seems to be reflected in the survey responses as well.
Nearly half (48%) of the people surveyed said that it would make a big difference to them if they thought that
advertisers were playing a role in deciding what people see in their TV newscasts. Close to three-quarters (72%)
said that they would be less likely to watch stations where there was product placement. (As a caveat, only 21%
actually recalled seeing a sponsored segment on TV news).
Such attitudes are reflected in the credibility of local news outlets as well. Most Americans are increasingly
skeptical about what they hear on TV news.
The number of people who said they believe most or all of what they hear on their local newscast has gone down
from 34% in 1998 to 23% in 2006.
Believability of Bocal T+ *e$s
Percent of public rating Local TV news as highly believable, 1985 to 2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press biennial consumption survey, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper
Readership, July 30, 2006. Survey question: ''How would you rate the believability of [item] on [a] scale of 4 to 1?''
While local news used to stand apart from the other news sources, it now commands about the same level of
credibility (23%) as the other broadcast and cable-news media sources.
And while people do believe what they hear on the news, what is possibly more worrying is that the share of those
who are skeptical (believe almost nothing) has been rising steadily. n 2006, about 10% of respondents believed
nothing on local TV news, up from 9% in 2004 and 7% in 2002.
Who is Watching Bocal T+ *e$sJ
f one looks deeper into who is watching local news, it seems to offer something to everyone.
The average local TV news consumer, according to the Pew Research Center's biennial survey
3
, is middle-aged,
with a mean age of 48 years. That does not mean that only the middle-aged like local news. ndeed, according to
the RTNDF survey
4
, it seems to be quite popular with young people; 18-to-24-year-olds were most likely to say
Local TV was their source of news (74.5%) compared to other age groups (who ranged from 62% to 67%). And
women, more than men, named it as their main source for news.
-3-
The same survey reflected an inverse relationship between education and local news consumption. Local TV
popularity declined among people with higher education. Among those who did not finish high school, 71% cited
local TV as their major source of news. The figure was 41% for those with post-graduate degrees. According to the
Pew Research Center, the regular consumer of local news has a median education of 14 years.
Both the Pew and RTNDF surveys also show that local-news consumers are middle-income. According to Pew,
regular viewers of local news earn a median income of $45,000. The RTNDF survey corroborates that to an
extent. t found that people of all income groups watch local news, but that those with incomes of $30,000 and
under were the most likely (74%) to say it was their major source for news.
Regular local news viewers are less likely to consume a substantial amount of news. They report an average of 83
minutes of news on a given day less than any network news viewer (93 minutes) or even cable news
viewers (90 minutes).
5
deologically speaking, regular viewers of local TV news tend to self-identify themselves as moderates (as do
regular viewers of any television channel other than Fox News). When asked about their political affiliation and
political ideology, local news consumers mostly called themselves independents.
Most of them aren't very technologically savvy. Less than half (40%) own an iPod or Personal Digital Assistant
(PDA) or Digital Video Recorder (DVR). That is still more than regular viewers of network news (only 38% owned
those new technological devices), but behind cable news viewers (49%).
S"onsore! *e$s
n 2006, local TV news had to contend with the issue of video news releases, or VNR's the TV equivalent of a
press release. But unlike the print version, it's much tougher to know one when you see one on a local TV
newscast.
VNRs are stories (or clips from stories) that look like news stories but are produced often using actors or
spokespeople on behalf of commercial clients or sometimes the government. Critics say that if not properly
identified, they amount to commercials or propaganda disguised as news. And the trade organizations
representing TV stations acknowledge that it's appropriate to disclose the sources and nature of VNRs.
What the two sides argue about, however, is whether the government should intervene to regulate the matter.
n November 2006, the non-profit Center for Media and Democracy released a report critical of the television
industry for failing to properly disclose the sources of VNRs. t was the second of its reports on the matter the
first, release in April 2006, had led to a FCC investigation into the use of VNRs. Two FCC commissioners are
leading that investigation, which will also explore the new allegations presented in the latest report.
But trade organizations like the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) and the National
Association of Broadcast Communicators (NABC), oppose any FCC regulation of the use of VNRs. They argue
that news organizations already have a code of ethics that calls for disclosure, and the issue should not become
governmental.
The two sides also disagree over when disclosure of a VNR is necessary. The Center for Media and Democracy
believes it is mandated 100% of the time based on an April 2005 FCC Public Notice.
The RTNDA issued a statement saying that according to the FCC sponsorship identification rules, VNR disclosure
is not required if stations or their employees have not received consideration for the videos, and unless the
material concerned politics or a controversial issue of public importance. The RTNDA said it believes that
consideration refers to the exchange of money in return for airing a VNR.
What does the FCC have to say about the debate? Nothing much till their investigation is complete. The critical
question may just be which way the FCC will rule will it take it upon itself to crack down on something that one
side roundly condemns, or agree that it's not a good idea to get the government involved.
-3%
See the PEJ backgrounder on video news releases: Do You Know What's On Your TV News?
)ootnotes
1.What is News?, RTNDF Future of the News Survey, Section 3, October 2006
2.The Business Side, RTNDF Future of the News Survey, Section 7, October, 2006
3.The Pew Research Center conducted its latest biennial survey on news consumption in April-May 2006. t is
based on telephone interviews conducted among 3,204 adults nationwide. t was released on July 30, 2006.
Online at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportD=282
4.The RTNDF survey had one third the sample size of the Pew Survey. t was conducted in April-May 2006 as
well, among 1,016 adults nationwide. Where do People Get their News, and How? RTNDF's Future of the News
Survey, Section 2, October, 2006
5.The average minutes are a median average. The Pew Research Center's biennial survey on news
consumption, July 30, 2006. Online at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportD=28
2:4Hour *e$s
2:4Hour Bocal an! egional *e$s *et$or(s
Local cable news networks are a small but growing competitor on the news landscape.
They emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the great promise of offering in-depth and immediate
coverage of local issues often missed or ignored by traditional local TV news. Some of the biggest cable
distributors entered the business notably Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, Comcast Corp., Bright House
Networks and Cox Communications nc. as did big-name companies in broadcasting such as Tribune
Broadcasting, Hearst-Argyle Television and Belo Corp.
By 1993 local cable news channels had enough of a presence to create their own associationthe Association for
Regional News Channels (ARNC). According to the Association, there are 42 local and regional news channels
across the nation, including 10 of the top 20 television markets.
1
Just what is a local cable news network? t is a local (for example, perhaps, serving one county or adjacent
counties or regional (spanning one or more states) network that airs local news and information including traffic
and weather updates 24 hours a day. Unlike local news on the broadcast channels, viewers have to subscribe to
a cable system to get the programming. n effect, the local cable channels are like a local CNN.
Programming on the channels is defined by the area they cover and the interests of the audience. Very often,
these 24-hour news channels attract their audiences by covering events in detail that otherwise would not get any
reporting. Often stories are re-run at different times during the day.
According to an extensive study conducted by the Radio & Television News Directors Foundation (RTNDF) in
2004,
2
most are owned and operated by either a cable or media content company.
Cablevision owns the News 12 operations that began on Long sland, and now also operate in Brooklyn, Hudson
Valley, the Bronx, Westchester ( New York) and parts of Connecticut. One of Time Warner's operations is New
York 1, in Manhattan. New York 1 was one of the first 24-hour local news stations when it launched in 1992. t
serves the five boroughs of New York City and has developed a strong presence since then. ts defining moment
came in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, when it covered the story with a local perspective much
longer than other news channels.
-3'
The 24-hour news operations owned and operated by media content companies usually form a small part of the
owner's main news and information ventures. Examples include Albritton Communications' NewsChannel 8 in the
Washington, D.C. area; Chicago's CLTV, owned by the Tribune Company; and Belo's NorthWest Cable News.
That last, based in Seattle, is a regional news network covering Washington, daho and Oregon. t draws on the
resources of Belo's broadcast TV stations in those states.
One of the most successful and highly regarded is New England Cable News (NECN). A regional news network,
NECN launched in 1992 and is a joint venture of the Hearst Corporation and Comcast. The channel is one of the
bigger operations in the field, with original programming, an experienced newsroom staff, and more than 3 million
subscribers in the six New England states.
3
t also has a steady audience. n the February 2006 sweeps, NECN's
cumulative audience made it the No. 5 cable network in the Boston market, behind ESPN but way ahead of CNN,
Fox News Channel and other national news services.
4
The To" )ive Bocal 0able *e$s 0hannels
5une 2002
0hannel Subscribe
rs
<$ner
News 12 Networks 3.8 million Cablevision
New England Cable News 3.6 million
Hearst
Corp./Comca
st
New York 1 2.9 million Time Warner Cable
Northwest Cable News 2.5 million Belo Corp.
Chicagoland Television News 1.8 million Tribune Co.
Source: George Winslow, "Moving Beyond Local News," MultiChannel News, July 12, 2006
While 24-hour local news channels aren't yet a major threat to the established Local TV stations and newspapers,
they are making inroads in their markets, and traditional broadcasters realize that they no longer have the
monopoly over reporting what's happening in their hometowns first.
.hat #ets Them Apart8
How do such stations create a niche in an already competitive local news market and also manage to fill 24 hours
with local news? n an early look at the field in 1999, the Radio & Television News Directors Foundation found that
the channels try many different techniques to make their mark.
5
Three specific techniques stand out.
/artnershi"s1 One technique is to form a partnership with leading local newspapers. That is mutually beneficial
the TV stations benefit by getting content from experienced journalists and the newspaper can promote itself to
suburban cable subscribers. Examples of such partnerships include New England Cable News, which has a tie-in
with the Boston Globe; NewsChannel 8, which features reporters and editors from the Washington Post; and
News 12 New Jersey, which has a similar tie-in with the Newark Star-Ledger.
Ti'e4Shifting1 Another common technique on these channels is time-shifting, or re-runs. Repeating a newscast
or feature that has been taped earlier is common practice on cable channels it gives the audience a second
chance to see a program, but it also fills the time while the station prepares new programming. Washington's
NewsChannel 8 actually has a tie-in with ABC News to re-broadcast ABC programs after they have aired on the
network and the network affiliate.
Hy"er4Bocalis'1 Finally, the 24-hour local channels make the most of a hyper/local focus on news. Most local
affiliate stations are housed in city centers. The cable channels try and go even more local, to particular
neighborhoods or 'under the radar' areas, or more in-depth, covering a local story in far more detail and with more
time. For example, New York 1 has a dedicated weekly program called 'n Transit' that focuses only on stories
relating to the city's mass transit system. New England Cable News is known for its in-depth documentaries.
6
-40
Economics
Most of the channels run tight ships avoiding costly labor-intensive reporting and closely monitoring operating
expenses. That is especially important for the many systems in communities that don't have enough subscribers
to make the channels economically viable from that revenue source.
7
Their main source of revenue is advertising and just like their product, it is often hyper-local. The channels
attract small, local advertisers who only want to reach out to their specific geographic area, and charge lower
rates than the advertisers would have to pay for national or local broadcast ads. That includes political advertising,
since the cable channels provide ideal platforms for candidates who need to reach only a specific community or
local area.
Some of the bigger channels and regional news networks aim even higher. With the help of nationwide ad-sales
organizations such as the National Cable Communications (NCC) co-owned by Time Warner, Comcast and Cox,
such channels are also drawing a number of national advertisers. The channels stress their growing market
coverage, upscale and dedicated audiences. They've brought in major automotive, financial, fast-food, retail and
other accounts.
8
On the flip side, the channels are taking multiple steps to cut costs in the newsroom. One way they save money is
in salaries, which tend to be much lower than at broadcast stations often as low as half those of traditional TV
station newsrooms. n 1998, the Columbia Journalism Review reported that the cable channels hire young
journalists, willing to work for lower salaries, with the hope that the experience will build them a reputation in the
local news market.
9
Another way they make their operations more efficient is by using technology. As early as 1998, Cablevision
added digital gadgetry to its News 12 Group that enabled just one person to run a station's control room.
10
Time
Warner has also invested heavily in digital production systems for its newsrooms and promotes video journalists
individuals who both report and shoot the story.
The Future
Despite their growth, the 24-hour local cable channels are relatively small in number and face a number of
challenges.
One challenge is the nternet. Like all television news operations, the cable news channels realize that viewers are
moving online to get up-to-date local news. And in an attempt to catch them there, many of the cable operations
are building and promoting their Web sites much like their broadcast counterparts.
All the top cable channels now have well developed Web sites, with audio-video capabilities, but whether they are
attracting visitors is not clear.
Even more than the world of online news consumption, the biggest challenge may be the changing format of
broadcast news stations. All television sets are expected to switch from analog to digital transmission by 2009
(see Digital sub-chapter for developments). When that occurs, all television stations in the country will have more
spectrum space. n other words, they can multi/cast more than one stream of programming simultaneouslyand
one of those streams could be local news and information. With their bigger and richer news operations,
broadcasters may be able to easily add-on round-the-clock local news. Not only do they have the infrastructure to
increase their local news coverage and enough content for time-shifting, but they also have the more direct
advantage of attracting viewers who don't want to pay for cable.
)ootnotes
1. For a list of local cable news channels, See the ARNC channel directory, Online at:
http://www.newschannels.org/Members.html
-41
2. Radio & Television News Directors Foundation, A Look at Regional News Channels and State Public Affairs
Networks, RTNDF, 2004; Online at: http://www.rtnda.org/resources/cable.pdf
3. Hearst Corporation Fact Sheet on New England Cable News, available online at:
http://www.hearstcorp.com/entertainment/property/ent_cable_newengland.html
4. George Winslow, Moving Beyond Local News, MultiChannel News, July 12, 2006
5. Radio & Television News Directors Foundation, Non Stop News: A Study on Regional News Networks, 1999
Available on the RTNDA Web site at: http://www.rtnda.org/resources/nonstopnews/index.html
6. Radio & Television News Directors Foundation, A Look at Regional News Channels and State Public Affairs
Networks, RTNDF, 2004
-. David Lieberman, The Rise and Rise of 24-Hour Local News, Columbia Journalism Review,
November/December 1998
%. n 2004, New England Cable News (NECN), one of the oldest regional news networks, expected to close the
year with about 12% growth in ad revenues, double its previous year's sales. NECN targets a range of non-
traditional TV advertisers, including smaller banks, insurance companies, utilities, health insurers and law firms.
Alan Breznick, Boom and Gloom at News Channels, Broadcasting & Cable, November 11, 2004
'. See David Lieberman, The Rise and Rise of 24-Hour Local News, Columbia Journalism Review,
November/December 1998; also Mike Cavender, Local Cable News Comes of Age, RTNDA Communicator,
November 2004
10. David Lieberman, The Rise and Rise of 24-Hour Local News, Columbia Journalism Review,
November/December 1998
%agaIines
By The Project for Excellence in Journalism
Intro
After a decade of speculation that technology might render the news weekly obsolete, the field heading into 2007
seems at long last on the cusp of genuine change especially among the biggest titles.
The problems are clear enough. The Big Three traditional news weeklies were beset in 2006 by stagnant ad
pages, the continuing rise of new print competitors, and trouble maintaining the circulation numbers promised to
advertisers. All of that reflects the larger underlying dilemma, the challenge of producing weekly journalism in a 24-
hour news culture. The only surprise may be why it has taken so long for things to give.
Time, the giant of the news weeklies, took the lead in promising change. t announced a new publication date and
a new way of measuring audience that it hoped might soon combine print and online. t redesigned its Web site to
-42
de-emphasize the print magazine. t also hinted, more cryptically, at a new editorial approach, one that is more
interpretive. Then it slashed more of its staff.
Newsweek, Time's traditional rival in chief, seems to be waiting and watching, ready to zig or zag after (it hopes)
learning from Time's mistakes or successes. That, too, involves risk. s Newsweek being smart, or is it just out of
ideas? f Time is on the right path, Newsweek may be left behind. f Time is making a brash but ill-conceived bet,
Newsweek may be well positioned letting others do the experimenting.
U.S. News & World Report, the smallest of the Big Three, seems content to play its own game and not focus on
what the others are doing. t was the first of the big weeklies to announce a new structure focused more on the
Web, doing so in 2005. Heading into 2007, however, the planned changes are not clearly evident on the site. And
in recent years the magazine's content has shifted to more policy-focused topics, part of a long-term effort to draw
a distinction between itself and the other two. Still, it seems likely to follow the lead of either of its rivals that
scores a big success.
The verdict may not come in the next year. But change on a more fundamental scale at the Big Three appears to
be starting.
n the meantime, rivals like The Week, The Economist and the New Yorker, all with distinct approaches unlike those
of Time and Newsweek, are winning readers the old fashioned way in print.
As for the opinion magazines, like The Nation and National Review, they have a new parade to watch, one that
may alter their fortunes. Their circulations can rise and fall according to which party is in power, and they are
seeing a power shift in Washington and political parties in transition.
Au!ience
The audience picture for news magazines varies markedly.
The magazines we refer to as the nontraditional titles The Economist, the New Yorker and The Week are
seeing their circulations grow, in some cases rapidly, and some are aiming to increase print circulation even more.
Yet the most conventional titles Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report continue to struggle to
hold on to readers and may be moving away from print in trying different strategies to win audience.
As a result, some publications may try to move to a new way to measure audience and sell ads, one that looks at
readership rather than circulation, with the goal of trying to combine print readership and Web visits.
Even such a new mode, however, is not all good news for the stalwart titles. The readership surveys they hope
will boost their audience numbers also reveal that those audiences, while wealthier than the overall population,
are also older. Meanwhile, their less traditional challengers in the field are reaching an audience that is young and
even wealthier.
Ti'e It Is a40hanginRS but Ho$ %uchJ
The shifting approaches to news magazines' audiences were most dramatically signaled in the moves by the
biggest, Time. t announced three major steps in 2006, all of which are expected to play out in the coming year.
First, Time announced that it was deliberately cutting the number of subscribers it promises to deliver to
advertisers (its so-called rate base) by 750,000
1
, while also raising its newsstand price. (Newsweek, the other big
player, later raised its cover price to $4.95 as well, but has not as yet cut its rate base)
Then Time announced a new delivery day, Friday, replacing its longstanding newsstand day of Monday. That
-43
change coincided with a shift in content toward review and analysis of the week's news rather than trying to break
stories. That task, Time said, would be left to its Web site. (The announcements followed on U.S. News's pledge
in 2005 to focus more on Web content.) Time also said the move to Friday might help it add advertisements
aimed at weekend shoppers.
Potentially the most far-reaching change, however, came in the new way Time said it wants to measure audience.
The magazine wants to move away from circulation completely as a metric and turn instead to overall readership(
To measure that, it intends to use online surveys from the firm Mediamark, a demographic research company.
Focusing on the readership numbers rather than circulation would create a radically different image of the reach of
Time as well as Newsweek and U.S. News. Time's 4 million
2
in print circulation yields about 22 million readers
3
according to MR data. (Newsweek's 3.1 in circulation
4
, meanwhile, nets 19 million readers
5
and U.S. News's 2
million
6
gives it 11 million readers
7
). Those reader numbers would presumably be adjusted upward if Web readers
were added to the mix, though how much is not clear. Time says the move is the first step toward our ultimate goal
of measuring the combined audience of our multi-media brand. But at the start, the readership numbers generated
from the survey will be based on print-only readership. Advertisers, meanwhile, can choose between Time's
reduced subscriber number or that print readership figure.
f the shift to measuring the magazine's combined audience is successful, and, soon, Time begins to sell ads
based on its combined print and online audience it will move Time toward being less a magazine than that new
thing in media, a multi-platform content provider, one with an audience that is potentially much larger than
anything measured in traditional circulation figures. f advertisers accept the changes and show an interest in
buying cross-platform ads, other magazines may follow suit and turn their attention to focusing more heavily on the
Web. But those remain big ifs.
While the changes at Time are dramatic they were in the early stages as 2007 began and could potentially
change the business structure of the news magazine field. But some kind of large-scale moves were not a
complete surprise. They represent a considered response to a major structural challenge.
The Big Three traditional news weeklies have been struggling for years to maintain circulation. While they
welcomed even small bumps in audience, there was a law of diminishing returns. The magazines were paying to
keep those numbers up through promotions and discounts. Some subscriptions have even come through third
parties who offer deep discounts and capture a big part of the actual fees from the subscribers.
For the big weeklies, that was acceptable, if sometimes painful, because it meant big circulation numbers that
allowed them to keep ad rates high. But as the nternet posed greater challenges, the cost of maintaining
circulation rose. And the value of a big print circulation also has to be weighed against the costs of printing and
mailing the issues of the magazines, both of which have risen.
*u'bers Di" Again for the Biggest Titles
n 2006, Time and Newsweek were both slightly up in audited circulation the first small bump each had seen in
a few years but essentially flat. U.S. News also saw a small bump, its second consecutive, but was still below its
numbers from 2003.
8
n general, all these magazines have seen flat circulation for the past several years. And experts note that the
figures would likely be declining if the weeklies did not fight hard to keep the figures up by offering subscribers big
discounts.
0irculation A'ong the Big Three *e$s %agaIines
1988 - 2006
-44
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations, annual audit reports & publisher's statements Circulation figures are averages for the second quarter
annually
At the close of 2006,Time's circulation was 4.066 million, up from 4.026 million in 2005.
9
That's a small increase,
less than 1%, and even with the bump there were problems for the magazine. First, Time was only 66,000 ahead
of the 4 million in circulation it promises its advertisers. That suggests a struggle to stay above that critical line,
and is a likely factor in the reduction in the rate base. Second, the 2006 circulation number, while an increase over
2004 and 2005, was lower than any other figure we had seen for Time between 1988 and 2003.
10
The audience news for Newsweek appears to be on a similar path. Again, the increase was very small, to 3.118
million in 2006 from 3.117 million the year before, also less than 1%.
11
But that total, was the second lowest
circulation number recorded for the magazine in the time for which we have data - 2005 was the lowest. The
figure places Newsweek just 18,000 in circulation above its rate base of 3.1 million and may lead the magazine to
consider cutting its base somewhat, if not as dramatically as Time.
And while U.S. News circulation was up for the second straight year in 2006, the moves were very small and the
figures don't seem to bode any better for long-term trends. The publication continued to bump along at right about
the 2 million mark. ts 2.036 million for 2006 was an increase of 2,000 over 2005, less than 1%.
12
Since 2000, U.S.
News has hovered right around its rate base of 2 million staying between 2.086 million and 2.022 million. One
question is, were Newsweek to cut its base, would U.S. News follow in order to save on its cost of maintaining
that circulation?
The future for both magazines may rest with Time, the leader now not just in audience but in the way it wants
Madison Avenue to think about audience. f Time is successful in its move toward using readership including
Web readership as its base for ad rates, that could amount to a revolution, one that others, it seems, including
the newspaper industry, would likely try to follow.
t is also possible, ironically, that U.S. News or other publications may be best situated to capitalize on the
proposed new measurement. Time is in the midst of figuring out exactly what its more Web-based approach will
look like. Newsweek, for the time being anyway, is primarily relying on its connection to MSNBC for its Web traffic.
But U.S. News already had a jump on trying to focus on the Web, announcing its intent in 2005. And its heavy
news you can use content, full of information on colleges, graduate programs, hospitals, etc., already has
something of a database feel on parts of its site.
Users of U.S. News's site have to pay for those premiums, but they could be used to drive traffic and Web ads. The
broader online-and-print readership measurement model also opens the door for some other publication
-45
one that may not be burdened with the costs of a print structure to enter the field
The Au!iences for the <ther *e$s Titles
The shifts proposed by Time stand in marked contrast to the story of the nontraditional new weeklies. Magazines
like The Economist, the New Yorker and The Week are not only seeing growth in the circulation of their print
products, they are actively aiming for more.
Some are aggressively seeking to expand, such as The Economist, and some are growing more organically, as
The Week's editor, Bill Falk, puts it. And some of them are doing it while charging more for their publications than
the big weeklies.
Whatever their approach, they offer evidence that, first, print is not yet dead, and second, that hard circulation
numbers can still be desirable. Even in the dawning Web era, Falk wrote to PEJ in an e-mail, there is a role for
a print magazine that is edited for the way busy people live today.
Consider the differences in the circulation of these titles over the past five years. n 2000, Time, Newsweek and
U.S. News had a combined circulation of about 9.3 million. By contrast, The Economist and the New Yorker in
2000 had a combined circulation of about 1.2 million.
13
That was a ratio of about 8 to 1.
For 2006, the three traditional weeklies, after Time's cuts, will show a combined print circulation of about 8.4
million.
14
The Economist, the New Yorker and The Week will be more than 2.1 million
15
over all. That is a ratio of less
than 4 to 1. Looked at that way, in six years the alternative news weeklies will have cut the print dominance of the
Big Three almost by half.
0irculation of *on4Tra!itional *e$s %agaIines
1988 - 2006
m c
o
o
O
J
c
i
-
a
k
n
tO I
--
o
o
c
n
o
CN
i
o
Ol O O O O) O) O) O) O) O)
o o
O

J
o
)
Ol O
)
O
)
O
)
O) O) O) O) O) O)
o o
O
Dear
O5 The Economist | |
The New Yorker [J
The Week
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations, annual audit reports & publisher's statements *The Atlantic is a monthly magazine
The fastest-growing of the alternatives is The Week, the publication owned by the British company Dennis
-46
increase allows the magazine to increase what it's charging for ads. The numbers are even more impressive
when one considers that it was launched in 2001.
The news magazine world's other British import, The Economist, also had another good year, climbing over the
half-million mark in U.S. circulation for the first time in its history. As of December 2006, it had a circulation of
639,205, a gain of roughly 70,000, or 12%, from 569,366 in 2005.
17
That growth, moreover, follows a long-term
trend. The Economist has seen its U.S. audience grow in each of the 17 years for which we have data a feat
unmatched by any of the other titles we follow. And it has made known its desire to reach 1 million, in large part
because as an English-language magazine, if considers the U.S. a critical market.
The New Yorker similarly continued its upward trajectory in 2006. The title, which broke the million mark in 2005,
rose to 1.067 million in 2006 from 1.051 the year before an increase of over 16,000, or about 1.5%.
18
That figure
is an all-time high.
As we have noted in recent years, the New Yorker has become newsier as it has grown, an approach that,
among other things, may have helped draw a different crop of readers to its pages. But with its focus on long
pieces, the arts, poetry and New York and Washington, the New Yorker is also a magazine for elites. How high can
an elite circulation climb?
Jet magazine, aimed at African Americans, saw a down 2006. Circulation dropped to 901,594, down from 948,694
in 2005 a decrease of about 47,000, or about 5%.
19
That 2006 figure, however, was still above 2004 2002
circulation numbers and just above its rate base of 900,000.
After a few years of deliberately trimming circulation, The Atlantic, the only monthly we measure, is sitting right at
the cusp of 400,000. ts 2006 circulation of 404,688 was just slightly up from the title's 2005 number of 403,636
an increase of less than 1%.
20
t's not yet clear how far The Atlantic intends to cut circulation, but the number it promised advertisers may provide
a hint. As of April 2005, the rate base was only 355,000.
21
That means there is still room for further cuts. The strategy
is intriguing, considering the jumps at other highbrow titles like the New Yorker and The Economist. Bradley has
stated in the past that his goal is to shrink the magazine's circulation and aim for a more exclusive niche.
Behind all the changing fortunes, the differentiation of traditional from nontraditional news magazines may be
getting less and less salient. f Time indeed is moving more toward commentary, the New Yorker has moved more
toward breaking news.
n turn the three traditional news weeklies, so long noted for their similarities, in time may be more notable for their
differences.
Who Are the ea!ersJ
News magazine readers continue to represent something of an elite audience. They are wealthier than the U.S.
population at large, according to reader surveys by Mediamark Research. n 1997 (the first year The Atlantic
joined the Mediamark survey) the average household income of news magazine readers was $50,807, compared
to $39,035 for the general population, a spread of 30% and more than $11,000. By 2005 news magazine readers'
average household income was $67,000, compared to $51,466 for the general population, still a 30% gap but a
difference in dollars of more than $15,000.
22

23
Along with that pattern, which advertisers might consider good news, news magazines also do not skew quite as
old as many other media. Over all, news magazine audiences are consistently about two years older than the
U.S. population. From 1997 to 2005, the median age of the news weekly readers in the survey went from 44.1 to
46.3.
24
The median U.S. adult population in that time went from 41.8 years old to 44.
25
Most other news sectors have
average audiences ages of over 50. For network news, the average is roughly 60.
Readership data also suggest that there may be some market for younger audiences here.
-4-
For the first time since we have kept track, Mediamark has added The Economist to its survey, and the results are
surprising. The Economist has the youngest audience of any of the news magazines we examine at 40.1 years
old it's even younger than Jet's 41.4 and it is the richest audience as well, with a household income of $96,257
that easily outstrips The Atlantic's $83,984.
26
The bad news is that both of those titles have small readerships (as distinct from circulation) compared to the
biggest news magazines. The Economist, for example, has about 1.7 million readers, but Time has more than 22
million and Newsweek more than 19 million.
27
That suggests that if there is a young news audience out there, it
may be a small one, and it may be going off in its own direction away from the more mass-audience titles. t also
may further explain why Time wants to push readership, if the number of different people who see each copy of
the magazine the so-called pass-along rate is so high.
%e!ian Age of ea!ershi"s by %agaIine
1995-2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: MediaMark Research, ''Magazine Audience Estimates''
%e!ian Inco'e of ea!ershi" by %agaIine
1995-2006
-4%
Source: MediaMark Research, ''Magazine Audience Estimates''
Design Your Own Chart
The Economist's
demographic numbers,
nonetheless, represent
a departure from the
structure of the
Mediamark survey
numbers in the past.
Generally it was the
older titles that had
wealthier readers, with
the oldest, The Atlantic
average age over
50, average income
over $80,000 as
case in point.
28
Those addition of the
Economist's readers to
the survey on the one
hand raise the median
household income of
news magazines
readers to $70,409 for
2006 more than
$28,000 above the
median U.S. household
income, according to
Mediamark. That figure
would be by the far the
largest difference we
have measured. The
Economist readers
would also put the
median age of news
magazine readers at
45.6 years old, putting
it closer to the national
median of 44.3 years
than it has been since
2003.
29
Average Inco'e
of *e$s
%agaIines
ea!ers
Compared to U.S.
population, 1995-2006
! "",
3 50,000
#
I 45,000 40,000 35,000
30,000
Year
[
J

U
.
S
.

A
d
u
l
t

P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

|

|

N
e
w
s

M
a
g
a
z
i
n
e
s
Source: MediaMark
Research,
''Magazine
Audience
Estimates''
D
e
s
i
g
n
Y
o
u
r
O
w
n
C
h
a
rt
-
4
'
Average Age of *e$s %agaIine ea!ers
Compared to U.S. population, 1995-2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: MediaMark Research, ''Magazine Audience Estimates''
Those numbers might only serve to show how little such overall averages mean. Two magazines sit below the
national age median Jet with a median average age of 41.4 and The Economist with a median of 40.1. All the
other news titles we measure are above it. (ncidentally, The Week, which isn't yet included in the Mediamark
survey, has a subscriber median income of $93,000 and an average age of 48. Again, though, those figures are for
subscribers, not for readers reader numbers include a much broader base of people and generally skew
younger and less wealthy.)
30
0onclusion
There are a many lingering questions about the future of news magazine audiences going into 2007. Will Time's
Web strategy and new delivery day have an impact on its audience? And, perhaps more importantly, how will
advertisers react to Time's audience-tallying approach? Will the smaller nontraditional magazines pay any heed to
Time's moves? Right now these titles are seeing growth and seem more than happy to stick with traditional
audience measures and hard-copy publications. Will one approach win out? s it in fact an either/or proposition?
The answers may not emerge in the next year. But they hold promise in time of reshaping the news magazine field.
SID-BA
To"ics in the Wee(lies
The Web Site profiles in our digital section offer a look at what online readers get when they click on the sites of the
news magazines we examine. But what about the old-media part of what they do? Halls Magazine Reports tallies
the topics in the pages of the Big Three news weeklies, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report, to
give a picture of what is actually in those pages year to year.
-50
What did the pages of the big news weeklies look like through the first eight months of 2006? National affairs was
the biggest single segment of content, as it almost always is, but it was down ever so slightly to 24.9% in the first
months of 2006 versus 25% in 2005. That was a bit of a surprise because 2006 was a mid-term election year
and, it turned out, an unusually significant one. But keep in mind that those first eight months include the summer,
when most titles run lighter content and do not include the fall run-up to the election and post-election analysis.
31
See chart.
The next largest topic in the Big Three weeklies was global/international, which made up 18.8% of the pages in
the first eight months of 2006, up from 16.2% in 2005. among other topics, entertainment/celebrity took a small
drop, to 7.7% from 8.2%, while health/medical science grew slightly to 10.5% from 10%.
32
Title by Title
But under those broad average figures there are wide differences between each of the titles included in the Hall's
survey. And those differences reflect different news agendas.
National affairs, for instance, made up almost a third of coverage in U.S. News at 30.9% in the first eight months of
2006, but only about a fifth of the coverage in Newsweek at 20.5%. Time sat between the two with 23.3%. Time's
and Newsweek's 2006 national affairs numbers were actually down when compared to all of 2005, but U.S. News
was up slightly.
33
See Chart.
U.S. News is also the leader in percentage terms in global/international news. The magazine devoted 21.2% of its
pages to the issue area through August 2006, compared to 18.8% for Time and16.4% for Newsweek. n fact, U.S.
News led in business and health coverage as well, devoting 11.1% and 13.5% of its pages to the topics
respectively. Time did the least business coverage and medical coverage and Newsweek was between the two.
34
Time led the way in celebrity/entertainment coverage with 11.5% of its pages on the topic. Newsweek was a close
second at 10.9%. U.S. News barely covered the topic at all nine-tenths of one percent of its pages.
35
The topic breakdown shows that the three magazines are distinctly different and that one, U.S. News, is hewing
to a more traditional news agenda. t is carving out a hard-news niche among the three magazines and avoiding
the broadest general-interest news magazine approach taken by its two bigger-circulation siblings. That may be
a factor in the smaller size of the audience for the U.S. News, but perhaps in the long run it's a more devoted one.
The *e$ Dor(er
Maybe it was the war in raq or the coming election or both, but The New Yorker was newsier through the first
eight months of 2006 than it was in all of 2005. National affairs coverage rose to 12.2% of all pages, compared to
9.1% in 2005. And global/international coverage was up to 7.1% of pages compared to 5.1% in 2005.
36
Those 2006 figures for the heavier news topics mirror almost perfectly the magazine's topic selection in 2004, the
year of the last presidential election. Those numbers suggest what many already intuit from reading the
magazine: t has become newsier over time, but specifically more political weighing in on big national debates to
take stands (and hammering away at President Bush). See chart.
At the same time, the New Yorker's two biggest topics continued to be culture, with 21% of its pages, and
entertainment/celebrity at 23.4%.
)ootnotes
1.Time announcement, Ed McCarrick, worldwide publisher, November 11, 2006
2.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Time.
3.Mediamark Research, Magazine Audience Estimates 2006.
-51
4. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Newsweek.
5. Mediamark Research, Magazine Audience Estimates 2006 .
6. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for U.S. News & World Report .
-. Mediamark Research, Magazine Audience Estimates 2006 .
%. Latest Time and Newsweek statements compared to previous annual report data .
'. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Time compared to previous annual report data .
10. Previous annual report data.
11.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Newsweek compared to previous annual report data.
12. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for U.S. News compared to previous annual report
data.
13. Previous annual report data.
14. Total of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News Publisher's Statements minus 750,000 .
15. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Economist, the New Yorker and The Week .
16. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Week compared to previous annual report
data.
1-. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Economist compared to previous annual report
data .
1%. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for the New Yorker compared to previous annual report
data.
1'. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Jet compared to previous annual report data.
20. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Atlantic compared to previous annual report
data.
21. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Atlantic.
22. Mediamark Research data from previous years
23. Magazine readers have traditionally been figured at about three for each issue. n other words, each
subscriber a magazine reports or each issue it sells at the newsstand is estimated to equal three readers. Why is
there a difference in the figures reported in the readership section of this report? The Mediamark survey used
here works a little differently. n it, 25,000 respondents are interviewed one-on-one in person and shown the logos
of various titles and asked (for weeklies) if they have read or looked into the magazine in the last seven days.
The data the survey yields are considered the best available for magazine readership.
24. Mediamark Data from previous years
25. bid
26. Mediamark Research, Magazine Audience Estimates 2006.
2-. bid
-52
2%.bid
2'.bid
30.bid
31.Hall's Reports research. Unpublished data. www.hallsreports.com
32.bid
33.bid
34.bid
35.bid
36.bid
-cono'ics
After a hard 2005 for ad pages, many in the news magazine business were hoping for a rebound in 2006. t didn't
happen.
For most of the magazines we examine, 2006 was a year with marginal gains in pages of 2% or less. The
exceptions were the New Yorker, which stood out for having a particularly bad year, and National Journal, which
had an unusually good one.
1
Ad pages over all declined ever so slightly a tenth of a percent among the 250 publications that list with the
Publisher's nformation Bureau. Early in the year there was some hope that improvement on Wall Street might
translate to the industry, but by the year's end the hope had vanished.
2
Some analysts also suggest that the industry is becoming less tied to economic cycles than to the changing
media landscape. According to the Veronis Suhler Stevenson Communications ndustry Forecast, the slowing in ad
revenues for magazines as a whole that started in 2005 will continue as people and advertisers divert their
attention to other media.
3
With continued declines expected in both ad revenues and circulation, Time magazine will offer advertisers the
opportunity to figure ad rates by counting overall readers, not just subscribers, and cut its ad rates. But the test for
all the titles may be how well they handle moving to the Web, something magazines have been slow at doing.
(See Digital.)
The e!s Titles
The news magazines largely follow the advertising trends of the industry overall, with few exceptions.
One of those exceptions was the New Yorker. Even as it picked up readers, its ad pages dipped by nearly 13% in
2006 and that followed a 3% drop in 2005. Even dollars, which usually at least appear to be up because of the
way magazines design their rate cards to show steady increases, were down 5.2%.
4
There are a few possible reasons for the declines. The magazine's highly successful publisher, David Carey,
stayed within the Conde Nast empire, but changed publications moving over to aid the launch of the company's
new business magazine Portfolio. And in an age of specialization and niche advertising especially with the
Web the more generalized content of the New Yorker may not be as appealing to advertisers. f so, the
-53
magazine may be in for some tough times
t should be noted that while this report cites ad dollars, those numbers are not as reliable a measure of financial
success as pages. Total dollars are figured by multiplying pages by rates on each title's ad card, and the cards are
notoriously inaccurate. Experts in the industry say ad revenues in reality are often about half what the magazines
report them to be. Thus despite figures showing healthy increases year-in and year-out, some titles are not
profitable.
0hange in A! Dollars an! /ages. Select %agaIines
2005 vs. 2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Publisher's nformation Bureau
At the other end of the spectrum was National Journal, the boutique policy journal published by David Bradley. t
saw a 13% increase in ad pages in 2006. (t should be noted that the publication has less than half the ad page of
the other, larger titles we track, including the New Yorker.) Total dollars were up even more, 18.9%. Part of the
success may be linked to the 2006 election. The mid-term vote generated huge media and voter attention down
the stretch as people realized that it could end up being exceptionally meaningful.
5
Elsewhere, the biggest titles Time, Newsweek and U.S. News saw essentially flat trajectory in ad pages.
Time's pages were up .8%, while Newsweek's were up a scant .1%. U.S. News rose slightly more, 1.9%.
6
But again, after 2005 when all three the titles were down Time and Newsweek by double digits it was hard
for the titles to feel good about 2006. n total dollars, regarded as the less meaningful measure, all the titles at
least reported more respectable numbers. Time's dollars were up 4.7%, Newsweek's 2.2%, and U.S. News's 4%.
7
Among the other titles we watch, The Economist posted minimal gains in pages up 1.1% but a much larger
increase 16.7% in reported ad dollars. How to explain the big jump? One possibility is that the magazine has been
adding subscribers at a good clip in recent years (see Audience) and at some point those new readers turn into
higher ad rates.
8
The same might be said for The Week, which actually caps the number of ad pages in every issue to keep its
content/ad ratio constant. t added only four pages in 2006 a .7% increase but reported a 34% increase in ad
revenues. Again the growth in ad revenue is attributed to the magazine's growing subscriber base.
9
The Atlantic Monthly and Jet were both largely flat in pages the former down 1 % and the latter up 1 % but
-54
the Atlantic reported an increase of 16.6% in revenue on its drop. That figure seems high for a publication losing
readers, though perhaps the richer demographic it's reaching (see Audience) helps boost profits. Jet, meanwhile,
reported a more restrained ad dollar increase of 3.8%
10
That's one year's data. But looking at ad dollars, and particularly pages, over time shows how things have soured
for the Big Three titles since the late 1990s.
*e$s %agaIines A! /ages. by Title
1988-2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Publisher's nformation Bureau annual reports
*e$s %agaIines A! Dollars. by Title
1988-2006
-55
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Publisher's nformation Bureau annual reports
Even with the slight improvement over last year, Time's ad pages are down in the territory they occupied in the
early 1990s. Newsweek's are down to where they were in 2001, of the year of 9/11. The numbers for U.S News
look slightly better, but only because the magazine has had such a bad run lately from 1988 to 2000 it had
more ad pages every year than it did in 2006.
And the numbers for the other news titles aren't very good either. From 1988 to 2002, The Economist had more
ad pages every year than it did in 2006. The New Yorker's 1,937 ad pages are the lowest total we have seen in all
the years we have on record back to 1988.
11
Despite an occasional good year here or there, the trend for the news titles is not a sunny one. The numbers have
looked especially gloomy as broadband nternet use has taken off. n November 2003, some 35% of online users
were getting online through some high-speed connection. By the beginning of 2006, it was 61%. The economic
outlook for magazines is not clear, but it looks as if it could be uncomfortable even for some of the biggest, oldest
titles.
12
That was, in part, what was behind Time's announcement in late 2006 that it was looking to change the way it
measure its audience, cut its ads rates 19% and bump up its cover price.
13
The Changing Picture of "aga0ine Economics
f Time wants to measure its audience by readership rather circulation, how would that work? The magazine plans
to work with Mediamark Research's new ssue Specific Accumulation study, which surveys 2,500 adults each
week online and asks them whether they have read specific issues of magazines. t will only measure the print
versions of them for now, though Time says it sees this as the beginning of measuring its total online and print
audience. The approach is an nternet version of the way Mediamark does its annual reader survey with data on
specific issues of the titles. The goal is to give the magazines and their advertisers a better idea about which
cover issues attract readers, with data that are solid enough to replace circulation figures.
The news that Time was raising its cover price is significant as well (particularly if the increase bleeds over into
subscription prices) because it will increase the share of Time's revenues that come directly from readers. Some
skeptics wonder whether the move is mostly a gimmick an attempt by Time to lure readers with deeper
discounts on subscriptions. Time, however, says the cover price increase comes as it is making a concerted effort
-56
to cut discount subscriptions from its rolls. t has trimmed its rate base by 750,000 subscribers (see Audience)
many of which it says were brought in through third-party discount subscription sellers. The move also gained
extra weight when Newsweek raised its cover price to match Time's. Time's cover price increase (combined with
the rate-base cut) suggests that it may be moving toward to the British model of magazine funding readers pay
a premium price, so circulations are smaller but ultimately from more loyal and generally wealthier readers.
Time may also be turning to a two-tier revenue strategy, that is, selling different news products. The magazine will
be charging more for its hard-copy product, but at the same time editors say they plan to rely more heavily on
Time.com for breaking news. Currently, at least, Time.com is a free site, which receives revenues only through
advertising, and online ads are known to be worth a small fraction of print ones. The result could be two different
products that essentially tap separate revenue streams. There will be the shrinking print side, increasingly a
weekend summary of the news for which readers will have to pay more than they once did. And a growing free
online side, which will offer more in the way of breaking news and generate only ad revenue.
Right now Time.com is extremely light on advertising, a situation that could change as the site is leaned on more
heavily for readership.
f there is a danger in such an approach it may be the potential for diluting a weekly's brand. Will the Web's ad-
only revenue stream generate enough money to make up for the losses the magazine will experience with its rate-
base cut? Will one side, say print, be forced to subsidize the other and for how long?
Those are some serious questions that will be answered in the next few years. Time's experiment an
experiment not by a small title, but the industry leader is important.
A Boo( at the A!s in the *e$s Titles
One method of learning about the economics of a magazine is to examine where the advertising comes from.
That offers some reflection, among other things, of the diversity of a magazine's economic base, its vulnerability to
change, and some sense of how Madison Avenue views the publication.
A look at ads in some of the news titles in 2005 and 2006 shows some major differences.
The biggest change may be the decline of auto ads not exactly a surprise. But if 2005 was a down year for such
ads, 2006 was dreadful. The Publisher's nformation Bureau found that auto ad pages were down 14% in
2006 in all magazines.
14
The good news for the news magazines, at least partly good news, is that other advertisers, it seems, have filled
the gaps particularly banks and other financial companies and computer and other technology companies. Why
might that be only partly good news? Because finding out what magazines charge for ads is difficult, and if the
decline in auto ads has reduced competition for magazine ad space, the magazines might be selling those pages
at reduced rates.
What follows is a look at the ads in three different kinds of news magazine: Time (America's first news weekly),
The Economist (the growing foreign import that focuses on recapping the week's events) and the New Yorker (the
longstanding literary weekly that has developed a news bent). For each we compared issues from the week of
September 25 in 2006 the week that corresponds with our digital content analysis (see Digital).
83
The two biggest ad buyers in Time were computer and electronics companies (14 pages of ads) and banks and
financial companies (12 1/3 pages). Both those totals were more than double the tallies from 2005. But car ads
fell by about half, to 5 pages in 2006 including one from German sportscar manufacturer Porschefrom 9
pages in 2005.There was also a big package of ads in the back of the 2006 issue marking Life nsurance
Awareness Month 7 pages from a non-profit life insurance group and 8 pages from various insurers. Other big
advertisers were drugs and pharmaceuticals (11 pages), clothes and fashion (4 pages) and books and media (4-
plus pages). The magazine had a whopping 87-plus pages of ads in the 110-page issue.
The Economist also leaned heavily on banks and finance for ads in 2006, carrying 13 pages compared with 7
-5-
pages of such ads in the 2005. There were differences from Time, though, in the ads. While many of Time's ads
were for things like credit card companies, many of The Economist's financial ads were more far-flung for Credit
Suisse and for the Qatar Financial Centre.
The other big ad drivers in the magazine are also a departure from what one finds in most U.S. news magazines
classified ads (14 pages) for positions like representative of the Ford Foundation in Vietnam and for the
Australian Secret Service. And there are 12 pages of ads for educational courses leading to MBAs and other
degrees in various locales around the world. That's not to say there were no similarities with Time, however. Both
magazines ran the same ad for the food giant ADM and Microsoft's Windows mobile. There were 66-plus pages
of ads in the 114-page issue of the Economist.
The September 25 issue of the New Yorker in 2006 was interesting because it was not a normal issue, but one
devoted especially to style. And in a down year for ad pages for the magazine, a perusal of the issue's pages
shows the advantages of putting a specific focus on an issue. There are more than 39 pages of clothing and
fashion ads here, far and away the largest ad buyer for the issue.
The next-highest advertising group, hotels and travel, has only 13 pages. And most of the fashion ads look less
like ads than photo shoots whether they are elegantly lit black and white or perfectly selected hues of green or
grey. The focus on style might also explain why that issue of the New Yorker was the exception where car ads
were concerned. t had more than 11 pages of car ads, more than twice as many as we saw in the 2005 issue.
Some were not the usual advertisers, though; ads for Jaguar, Mercedes and Saab were all focused on design.
The other big ad buyer was hotels and travel, which again featured upper-crust hotels like Renaissance, which
had a four-page pull out, and Preferred. t was an up ad week for the New Yorker, with roughly 90 pages of ads
out of 158 total pages.
0onclusion
The year 2007 could prove pivotal to the magazine industry and news magazines specifically. After a series of
down years, there is no projected upturn on the horizon, and falling subscriber bases may be leading advertisers to
look elsewhere to spend their dollars. The biggest news weeklies and the New Yorker, which had a very hard
year may be the most vulnerable. They have broad audiences and do not offer advertisers the specific
targeted niches they are increasingly interested in, and that they can reach on the Web.
Time's experiment, using readers rather than subscribers to set ad rates, may prove an important step. t would
allow the titles to further integrate their Web sites with their hard copies and perhaps make the magazines more
appealing to advertisers. But the outlook for that experiment remains unclear.
)ootnotes
1. Publisher's nformation Bureau Reports, January-December 2006 vs. 2005
2. bid
3. Veronis Suhler Stevenson Communications ndustry Forecast, Consumer Magazines, p. 557
4. Publisher's nformation Bureau Reports, January-December 2006 vs. 2005
5. bid
6. bid
-. bid
%. bid
-5%
9. bid
10.bid.
11.bid
12.Pew nternet and American Life Project Tracking Survey January 13, 2006, p. 15
13.Time Announcement, Ed McCarrick, November 11, 2006
14.Publisher's nformation Bureau 2006 Magazine Advertising Statement.
15.t should be noted that out 2005 ad inventory was done in May to correspond with that year's content.
<$nershi"
There was no change in rankings of the top 10 magazine companies in 2005 (the latest year for which data is
available), but there was movement within them. Titles are being sold and bought. New launches are being
prepared. And much of the new landscape's look is being determined again by the industry leader, Time Warner,
which is selling off some of its magazine holdings and slashing staff at others.
Meanwhile, where the online world is concerned, things are moving slowly in a few different directions. The move
to the Web was always likely to be more complicated for news magazines, a medium that was never focused
around timeliness the way others, like TV or even newspapers, were. Thus far, they've adapted unevenly.
Though Ti'e Warner is still the largest of the large owners, the gap is rapidly closing as the company prunes
properties. Time Warner saw its total magazine revenue fall to $4 billion in 2005 billion from $4.8 billion the
previous year a drop of 17%. n part it was due to a miscalculation in 2004 of what segment of the company's
revenue came from magazines the book division was mistakenly included by Ad Age, which collects and
calculates the data.
1

2
Meanwhile, A!vance /ublications, which owns Conde Nast, has become a much bigger No. 2, with net
revenues climbing to $3.4 billion from $2.4 billion, an increase of 42%. t is now closing in on Time Warner, in part
because it is buying properties and expanding its Web presence.
3
The No. 3 company, Hearst. had a quieter year with no big acquisitions or sales. Still, revenues for the company
were up about 16% from previous year, climbing to $2.1 billion from $1.8 billion.
4
%agaIine evenue of To" Ten 0o'"anies. 2003
-5'
Source: Advertising Age, Chart: Top 25 Magazine Companies
Design Your Own Chart
Those three
companies' combined
revenues dwarf the rest
of the top 10
companies combined.
But the top two appear
to be charting different
courses.
Time nc. spent some
of last year fighting off
a bid by the investor
Carl cahn to break up
the company, and while
it remains largely intact,
its plan to sell off 18
titles suggests it wants
to become smaller and
more focused. The
publications for sale
were targeted niche
brands that stand apart
from such broader titles
as People, Time and
Sports llustrated.
Niche publications
remain good magazine
business, but are not
the direction,
apparently, in which
Time Warner wants to
go. And the titles the
company is holding on
to are cutting staff. n
short, this does not
look like a company
looking to grow, at the
moment anyway.
Advance, meanwhile, is
still looking to add
titles. n July, the
company, which owns
Wired magazine,
bought Wired.com, its
online home. For eight
years the two platforms
for Wired have actually
been held by different
companies. Advance
also is preparing to
launch a new high-
profile business
magazine, Portfolio, in
May. That one is a
highly anticipated
gamble. Advance
brought in some big
names to join the effort, including David Carey from
the New Yorker as publisher and Joanne Lipman
from the Wall Street Journal as editor.
*e$s %agaIine <$ners
Aside from Time, the other news magazines
owners did not make any major changes in 2005.
As we enter 2007 they are likely waiting to see
what happens with Time's readership gambit. f
that falls flat, the magazine and the company may
have suffered from the effort.
The Washington /ost 0o'"any, which owns
Newsweek, is having magazine troubles. For the
latest year for which there are data, 2005,
magazine revenues fell to $345 million, a decline of
almost 6% from $366 million in 2004. Newsweek is
the primary cause for the rough times. For the Post
Company's limited magazine holdings, a bad year
at Newsweek means a bad year for the magazine
portfolio. And that is likely to be truer in 2007,
because in December 2006 the company sold its
technology titles, including Government Computer
News, Washington Technology, Government
Leader and Defense Systems. Over all, the drop in
magazine revenue pushed the Post Company from
being the nation's 15 th largest magazine company
to being the 16th.
5
But the Post Company has diversified holdings and
is expanding in other media. n 2006 it purchased
AM and FM radio stations in Washington on which
it simulcasts news/talk programming. The stations,
like all terrestrial radio, are local, but on the air they
aggressively promote the fact that they have global
reach over the nternet.
-60
The Post Company is now just ahead of No. 17 Dennis /ublishing, which owns The Week and climbed two
spots from No. 19. Dennis, which also owns the lad titles Maxim and Stuff, saw its revenues climb to $341
million from $316 in 2004, an increase of about 8%. Dennis was helped in particular by the explosive growth of
The Week, which saw another good 2005 as its audited circulation (see Audience), ad revenues and subscriber
revenue (see Economics) grew. The company has no set target audience number for The Week, according to the
magazine's editor, but sees it growing fairly steadily for the next few years. That could push Dennis even higher in
the size rankings.
6
Tuc(er'an %e!ia /ro"erties, owner of U.S. News and World Report, made no moves of note, but saw its
revenues increase to $246 million from $236 million in 2004, an increase of 4.2%.
7
<nline an! the )uture
Other than Time, which is owned by Time Warner, none of the news magazines we examine are owned by
companies that fall within the 10 largest media companies in the U.S. Looking at revenue derived only from
magazines and not from other properties, only Time and the New Yorker, owned by Advance, are in the 10 largest
magazine companies and therefore part of larger corporate Web strategies.
Those two companies, however, are taking different approaches the Web.
n 2006 Advance launched a Web portal, Brides.com, that combines three of its print magazines into one site.
Advance is particularly eager to make its sites into Web destinations. Besides Brides.com, it is interested in the
Web portal model for food (with Epicurious.com), travel (with Concierge.com) and fashion (with Style.com). The
New Yorker Web site, however, exists outside that strategy. t is treated as a separate holding from the rest of the
company's titles online.
Time Warner, meanwhile, appears more interested in building its Web identity around its various titles Time,
People, Real Simple and Cooking Light rather than interest areas. All titles have their own Web identities. Even
n Style has its own home, with no obvious homepage links the title it was spun off from, People. Time also took a
step toward raising the profile of Time.com by renovating and relaunching the site. n the first issue of the new
Friday-released print version of the magazine, the new editor, Richard Stengel, told readers in a letter, The new
publication date reflects the way the nternet is affecting pretty much everything about the news business. Today
our print magazine and TME.com are complementary halves of the TME brand.
8
As Advance and Time Warner build their Web presences, it will be interesting to see whether one strategy
emerges as better than another, or if both succeed.
Elsewhere, news magazine owners are proceeding ad hoc, as they have in the past, with much depending on
who is overseeing the site or how the editor or publisher feels about investing in the Web. n a time of tight
budgets and staff cuts, such an approach means Web sites might more easily become an afterthought. At the
same time, those sites are freer of the restrictions that can grow from big corporate Web strategies restricted to
a certain look or certain features because of owners' demands. The sites can be focused around what their
owners believe each individual publication needs.
The pluses and minuses of such an ownership situation can be seen on Newsweek.com. The site does not look
like others owned by its corporate parent, the Washington Post Company, and that makes a certain amount of
sense: Newsweek is a different kind of publication from the Washington Post or Slate.
Newsweek.com has had some successes, winning some best of the Web Awards from the magazine industry site
minonline.com for its online coverage. And the site may soon be adding more features. Mark Whitaker, Editor of
Newsweek from 1998 until September 2006, has moved over to Washingtonpost.Newsweek nteractive, where he
will oversee new projects for the digital division.
But Newsweek.com is in some ways poorer for that independence. While washingtonpost.com, for instance, has
done much to add to the Post's franchise in recent years adding video and interactive features the site for
Newsweek without question thinner. t has no video reports (just segments featuring editors) and a lot more white
-61
space (see Digital). Meanwhile, Slate looks much more finished, with several podcasts and a lot of new material
daily.
What will the Post Company do with the sites? That decision may well be part of Whitaker's mission. The
company is beginning to cross-promote them a step further than last year but Newsweek.com is still
tethered tightly to msnbc.com.
The Week has seen exceptional audience growth, but its Web presence has so far been something of an
afterthought. That may be starting to change. n 2007 The Week plans to do a daily version online of what it does
every week in print, a daily summary of accounts from other outlets. But the magazine's owner, Dennis
Publishing, has done little with its other Web sites thus far beyond offering and encyclopedic backlog of photos of
the women it has featured in its pages some of which it seems to mark as Web-only.
Proof that one doesn't need a big owner to have Web focus and strategy comes from The Economist. While the
Economist Group is clearly pursuing a print growth strategy, the Web site, economist.com, is not an afterthought.
There is a wealth of free statistical data, notably including country profiles from the magazine's ntelligence Unit
that look at various nations' economic data, political structures and histories as well as forecasts of where they are
headed. And last fall the site added new features including daily stories and updates, an economics blog where
readers write, and more podcasts, including a five-minute summary of that week's print Economist.
)ootnotes
1.Top 25 Magazine Companies, 2005, on AdAge.com. compared to data from previous year's reports
2.Time Warner sold its book division in early 2006. But that figure is likely to drop again next year. Time Warner
announced in September 2006 that it was taking bids for a group of 18 magazines including Popular Science and
Outdoor Life.
3.Top 25 Magazine Companies, 2005, on AdAge.com. compared to data from previous year's reports
4.bid
5.bid
6.bid
-.bid
%.A Changing Time, Letter to readers from Richard Stengel Jan. 6, 2007
*e$s Invest'ent
The magazine industry's financial woes and the effect they've had on staffing are hardly breaking news. The end
of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 were marked by staff cuts at well-known titles like U.S. News & World Report,
Business Week and Time (see 2006 Report).
The latter months of 2006 had none of the big staff-cut announcements from a year earlier, but smaller hits kept
on coming, as when Business Week cut another dozen positions.
1
With the arrival of 2007, however, came a bigger blow. On January 18, Time nc. announced it was going to cut
289 people from the staff of its top magazines 172 from the editorial side and 117 from business side.
2
The cuts announced were to hit Time magazine particularly hard. t was to lose about 50 people in all, a mix of
-62
editorial and business jobs. t would close its bureaus in Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta and cut four
correspondents from its Washington bureau. (The magazine said it would keep three laptop correspondents in
L.A. who would work directly with editors in New York.) The latest cuts added to Time nc.'s two rounds of
reductions at the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006.
3
Other notable Time nc. properties were to be hit as well Sports llustrated was to lose 30 staff members and
People 37 editorial employees but the cuts at Time had a special significance, coinciding with the magazine's
attempt to redefine itself.
4
According to a company statement, the cuts, made as part of the new multi-platform publisher, are focused on
increasing efficiencies and allowing for closer collaboration between our digital and print businesses.
5
What do the cuts mean about the direction of the new Time? t will almost certainly rely less on its own reporting,
since it has fewer people in the field. And the closing of bureaus in Chicago and Atlanta (often viewed as the
capitals of the Midwest and South) probably means regional coverage will take a hit. Correspondents in such
regional bureaus usually exist to be a magazine's eyes and ears there. One also wonders if the magazine's voice
will grow more coastal as New York and Washington, always a big part of its coverage, hold a larger percentage of
its staff.
Tallying up the staff boxes at Time and Newsweek, as we do annually in this report, it's clear that even the 12
months before the latest cuts were hard. Staffing and bureaus for both magazines were at new lows since we
began keeping track of them. Both witnessed the steepest one-year declines in staff on record.
There is little question that cuts in staff and bureaus have an impact on a news organization's ability to gather,
understand and analyze the news. They also make it hard to break news to do enterprise.
The cuts may mean the two magazines titles will focus more on recapping the news and then interpreting it. The
Week, which has growing circulation and ad revenues, puts out a weekly publication effectively without reporters.
t employs a group of editors who scrutinize the week's news and consolidate coverage from various outlets into a
single account that tries to not only say what happened but to give a favor of how different outlets covered
developments.
That kind of approach at Time and Newsweek, of course, would involve dramatic alterations in format and
mission.
Time says it is going to alter its content, and in its print form switch to being less of a breaking-news vehicle and
more of a reflective and analytical one. But the magazine has also announced it is going to rely on its Web Site
more for providing breaking news.
Such a move, unless it simply involved running wire copy or repurposing stories from other parts of the
Time/Warner empire (like CNN.com), might easily require a bigger staff, not a smaller one. (And though it is early
and changes are still under way at Time, the Time.com part of the magazine's staff box actually shrank in 2006 to
7 people from 13 in 2005.)
6
The proposed changes mean Time's staff box in particular bears watching in the next few years. One question,
particularly after the most recent round of cuts, is whether the proposed redefinition of mission at Time is an
elegant way of dressing up cost-cutting.
Staffing at Ti'e an! *e$s$ee(
An examination as of October suggests that 2006 was a tight year in the newsrooms of Time and Newsweek.
According to the totals offered by the magazines' own staff figures, Time had a head count of about 226.
Newsweek was at about 165.
7
*e$s %agaIine Staff SiIe <ver Ti'e
-63
Time and Newsweek select years 1983 - 2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism from magazine staff boxes
Those numbers equal staffing drops between 2005 and 2006 of roughly 38 people at Time and 20 at Newsweek,
or 14% and 11% respectively. Those drops, which came long before the January cuts, are steep. For comparison,
consider the years from 1983 to 1993., n that 10-year period Newsweek reduced staff by a total of 77 and Time
by only 18. As of October 2006, Newsweek's staff was less than half what it was in 1983.
8
On what positions did the axe fall? t is always difficult to tell precisely with a magazine staff box. Titles are not
always what they seem reporters, for example, are often actually researchers. But tallying up the numbers in
the Time box, some figures stand out. The number of reporters (writer-reporters, senior reporters and regular
reporters) dropped to 26 from 29. And as we've noted, the number of people working only for Time.com fell to 7
from 13.
9
Newsweek's cuts included four jobs in its art department photographers and layout people from 35 people
from 39; among senior editors, reduced by three; and editorial assistants, reduced by four.
10
0orres"on!ents an! Bureaus
Both Time and Newsweek cut the number of their bureaus in 2006 along with the number of people working in
them. Again it is unclear whether those moves were part of larger efforts to change their missions or simply ways to
save money. Whatever the reason, the net impact was few reporters on the ground.
Time's bureaus dropped to 20 in 2006 from 25 at the end of 2005 and, of course, will drop even more next
year. The magazine closed its offices in slamabad, Pakistan; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Seoul, and Toronto. Time
also closed its New York bureau, though the effect of that closing is probably relatively small since the magazine's
headquarters are in New York.
11
Newsweek cut three bureaus, going from 20 at the end of 2005 to 17 in 2006. ts bureau casualties abroad
included offices in Brussels, the home of the European Union, and Cape Town. Within the United States, the
magazine also combined its Chicago and Detroit bureaus into a Midwest bureau, though it's not clear exactly
what the meaning of the move is; the staff box continued to show a reporter in each city.
12
-64
*e$s %agaIine Bureaus <ver Ti'e
Time and Newsweek select years 1983 - 2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism from magazine staff boxes
And those cuts weren't just a reshuffling of personnel pulling back reporters from their far-flung perches and
placing them closer to home. They resulted in less overall staff. Time reduced its bureau correspondent staff to 48
from 52 the previous year. Newsweek's bureau staff was cut to 42 from 49 in 2005.
13
*u'ber of 0orres"on!ents in Bureaus <ver Ti'e
Time and Newsweek select years 1983 - 2006
I!(hfe
1983 1993 2003 2004 2005
Year
[J Time
| | Newsweek
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism from magazine staff boxes
-65
it ,o
30
I
:3
:0
73
Such reductions are important because they go to one of the principle strengths of the weeklies, a big, spread-out
newsgathering operation. The bureaus, and the correspondents who staff them, give the magazines listening
posts that let them offer comprehensive coverage of the world. When news broke in a remote location, the
weeklies would have reporters nearby who had been paying attention to the news form the region and had a feel
for the scene. As the outposts and their staffing are reduced, those abilities diminish.
Considering the steady stream of cuts in bureaus and bureau staffing, the question is whether what remains will be
enough to cover a complicated world where news from distant outposts has taken on an increasing importance.
0ontributors
Newsweek's list of Contributing Editors changed little in the past year, declining to 17 names from 18 the year
before. The changes in Time's Contributors list were bigger in terms of size the list grew to 31 from 24 and
in type.
14
*u'ber of 0ontributors in Staff Bo&es <ver Ti'e
Time and Newsweek select years 1983 - 2006
8888
2005
1933 1993 2003 2004
Year
[J Time
| | Newsweek
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism from magazine staff boxes
Design Your Own Chart
-66
personalities largely known in journalism for their work at other outlets Michael Kinsley, for example, or the New
Republic's editor, Peter Beinart, or CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta. But Time's list in 2006 was notable for the nature of
the additions, mostly staff members cut from the other places in the staff box. Some of the new contributor
additions: former Senior Foreign Correspondent Johanna McGeary, former Jerusalem Bureau Chief Matt Rees
and former Senior Writers Daniel Kadlec and Michelle Orecklin.
That has long been more of the approach of Newsweek, which has several people on its Contributing Editors list
who were once full staff members, including Eleanor Clift and Ken Woodward.
That use of the contributors lists may continue to grow as the staffs of the weeklies are cut. Often moves into the
contributors list are part of the layoff negotiation that goes on between management and staff. Moving personnel
from staff to contributor leaves the titles more flexible. t still gives the magazines access to the people they once
had without paying them benefits or big salaries. t is a likely way of the future as the publications face tight
economic times.
Su''ary
Staff reductions seem to go beyond a trend for the big weeklies. f January's cuts at Time are any indication, such
reductions have become a way of life in the past few years and seem likely to remain one in the immediate future.
The magazine's staff boxes grew fat in the good economic years as they moved more and more resources and
operations inside their headquarters. But increasingly in their desire to be nimble and cut costs they seem to be
adopting a larger trend in American industry as a whole outsourcing.
Bureau offices are being closed and staffs trimmed as the ability to track news online grows. That doesn't,
however, mean foreign coverage is going to become something done from a computer terminal or strictly by
personnel who parachute into hot news areas. Stringers, who have always been put to use by the news
weeklies when news breaks, are likely to get more work, and former staff people will be called upon in a fee-for-
service way to offer expertise.
Where does all that leave the weeklies in the future where staffing is concerned? Leaner and meaner, but
ultimately with a product that is less under their control. Smaller bureau staffs and fewer foreign offices mean
scoops will inevitably be less common. But that may fit with the weeklies' new role in the media landscape,
particularly with Time's new approach to coverage, which may be more in line with that of The Economist: part
week in review, part opinionated analysis. The one thing that isn't clear is what it will mean to the Web operations
of those publications, which increasingly will be the platform charged with breaking news.
Footnotes
1.Talking Biz News blog, Sept. 29, 2006. http://weblogs.jomc.unc.edu/talkingbiznews/?m=200609
2.Time nc. Cutting Almost 300 Magazine Jobs to Focus More on Web Sites New York Times, Katharin Seelye,
January 19, 2007
3.bid
4.bid
5. Time nc. said to slash nearly 300 jobs, Reuters, Jan. 18, 2007
6.Time staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
-.Staff boxes, Time, October 9, 2006, and Newsweek, October 23, 2006
%.Staff boxes, Time, October 9, 2006, and Newsweek, October 23, 2006 compared to previous years' data
-6-
9. Time staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
10.Newsweek staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
11.Time staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
12.Newsweek staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
13.Staff boxes, Time, October 9, 2006, and Newsweek, October 23, 2006
14.bid
Digital
News magazines have had a difficult time figuring how they fit into the world of the digital media. Their long lead
times and more reflective style of writing don't jibe well with the Web's continuous nature. And on the whole
magazines have lagged behind other media in integrating the Web into their larger plans.
Some events in 2006 suggest that now may be changing, at least at some publications.
Several magazines increased their daily online output, began creating content specifically for the Web, and gave
users more multi-media features.
The changes are also reflected in online finances. Ad spending on the e-media side of magazines was expected
to grow by more than 34% in 2006 to over $400 million. That's an impressive jump, but it still makes up only 1.7%
of total ad spending on consumer magazines.
1
And then there was Time, the news genre leader, and its stated goal to begin to count audience as a combination
of print and Web together. The magazine announced it would be relying on its Web site to handle breaking news.
t instituted a major Web redesign that de-emphasized the print publication. t put its top editor in charge of the
magazine and its Web site as well uniting the two sides of editorial. (And all of that followed a 2005
announcement by U.S. News that it would increasingly be transitioning itself to the Web.)
The question is what those moves will amount to. Some observers cite them as positive and necessary by a
medium slow to the party. Yet other critics believe the talk may just be a way to dress up cuts in staff, and recent
reductions may lend credence to that thinking.
But there's also little question the publications hope to generate more clicks and dollars from the Web. The
success of Time's plans to calculate its ad base on readership (ultimately including Web readership) may dictate
how the rest of the field approaches the challenge.
To assess how far news magazines have traveled on the Web entering 2007, PEJ examined some of the top
newsweekly sites and did a site-by-site accounting of the features and advertising on three: time.com,
economist.com and theweekmagazine.com. They were part of a larger inventory of 38 different news sites on
various types from across the Web. (See Digital 5ournalis' cha"ter for the full analysis along with an interactive
tool to help citizens evaluate their favorite news sites and a full description of the methodology.)
We measured sites using six different criteria: The custo'iIation options the sites offered, their use of 'ulti4
'e!ia, the possibilities they offered for interactivity, the bran!ing of the content (that is how much was from the
outlets as opposed to outside sources), the !e"th of information available and how the site was doing
econo'ically in terms of drawing advertising. On each of these measures each site was placed into one of four
categories ranging from a top group that offered a lot to the last group which offered the least amount.
-6%
The three sites were widely different in most regards how they handled podcasts, if they had them at all,
whether they charged for content and where they got that content from. n short, there is no dominant approach to
news-magazine Web sites. And that may be the case indefinitely if those three titles are any indication, since they
seem to be differentiating themselves increasingly in their print content. But as of now these sites, sometimes
going in a few directions at once, are serving as test kitchens for their parent titles.
Ti'e =$$$.ti'e.co'>
At the start of 2007, Time revamped and relaunched its Web site. t added new features, limited its color palette
and cleaned up a site that was fairly cluttered. The new site is more organized and simpler without being sparse.
t looks and feels more like the online home of a new Web outlet than it did before and less an online parking
space for the magazine.
Still, some of what we found on the site in October still held true in January. For instance, the first thing a visitor is
likely to notice is that Time is not alone here. Signs of its partnership with CNN another news outlet owned by
Time/Warner appear in the header. But there is more brand differentiation now than before. n the earlier
incarnation, the site offered The Latest Headlines from CNN. That has been replaced by Latest Headlines,
which lists 10 news items from a variety of sources, CNN among them.
The new Time.com is also an environment more distinct than before from the print magazine. The image of the
current week's magazine cover, for instance, is pushed further down on the page, rather than appearing in the top
right hand corner.
One thing the old and new sites have very much in common, however, is that everything here is still free.
Visually, the new Time.com uses a cleaner three-column format as opposed to the four-column approach it used
to have. And while the old site had pictures scattered all over it, the new one features only a changing slide-show
picture, with an ad on the right side and a row of three photos in the section below. The layout is modular.
The old cluttered Time.com was not without its advantages. t was one of the more custo'iIable Web sites,
finishing in the top tier in part because it offered several different RSS feeds, podcasts and a mobile version of
itself. t also finished in the top tier for bran!ing, using human editors to make decisions about layout (rather than
computer programs) and using bylines on staff copy. The site also relied heavily on its staff for lead stories more
than 75% of its lead pieces carried staff bylines.
t scored lower, in the third tier, in !e"th. ts score was hurt by offering fewer updates than other sites (something
true of most magazine sites) and not using embedded links to take readers further into a subject
Time put even less emphasis on 'ulti 'e!ia (it finished in the bottom tier). This is a text based Web site. t also
earned the lowest marks for user "artici"ation. t offered users little in the way of communicating or reacting, not
even the opportunity to send emails to authors.
Time also does not have a significant number of revenue strea's on the site at this point. t did not have many
ads eight and it did not charge for any content.
The new Time.com seems to place less emphasis on allowing users to customize it it certainly highlights
customization lessand is more focused on presenting users with a clean, uncluttered first view of the page. t
still has multiple RSS feeds and podcasts, and a link to get a mobile version of the site, but those links are at the
bottom.
On the other hand, blogs have multiplied. Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish is still here (though Sullivan announced
that his blog was moving to Atlantic.com), and it has been augmented with blogs about Washington (Swampland),
The Middle East and entertainment (Tuned n). The site also added a column called The Ag, which stands for
aggregator, which talks about what's news in other media.
nterestingly, the redesign actually left the site with fewer ads. There were a total of four in September, placing it in
-6'
the bottom 10 of the sites we looked at. But there were only two in January and they were coordinated for the
same product Bentley College. That approach, also taken by Economist.com, makes the ads feel more like an
integrated part of the page and less noisy.
The strength of Time.com is its willingness to reach beyond its own pages for content. There is a lot here. The 10
stories in the Latest Headlines box are usually wire copy, but they do at least offer users a link to major breaking
news. And such fare as Andrew Sullivan's blog not only brings more outside content to the page, its teaser text
can definitely bring a different flavor, as it did on December 9, 2006: f the Democrats have the balls to restore
our constitutional order may have to stop being an independent for awhile. Not exactly journalism in the tradition
of Henry Luce.
Perhaps most interesting, the new Time.com does not make a point of offering content from the magazine. The
daily stories from Time's staff, on the page's top left, are often shorter than magazine stories and feature either a
different tone or some exclusive tidbit, and Time.com clearly differentiates between them and the stories on the
rest of the site. And articles from the actual magazine are hidden down the page under the image of that week's
cover. Users have to click the image to get to those pieces.
t all amounts to a step toward a Web environment that is more than the magazine, with plenty of short items and
Web-only content. That is what Time promised in the summer of 2006 when it said it was going to turn to the Web
more and more, particularly on breaking news.
The -cono'ist =$$$.econo'ist.co'>
The brand. The brand. The brand. f there is one thing that Economist.com accomplishes, it is clearly and
successfully pushing the Economist brand online. Lest anyone wonder, the site is anchored in the top left corner
by the signature white lettering in a red box in this case spelling Economist.com with a picture of the current
magazine's cover prominently beneath.
Like the magazine, the site is clean, well-organized and text-heavy. t is also, like its print sibling not heavy with
pictures or graphics (there were six on a representative homepage, and four of them were quite small). Even the
site's ads, (often for petroleum companies or large blue-chip corporations) are designed without a lot of colors or
jumpy graphics.
2
There is a lot of free content here, but most of the stories from the print edition are accessible only to subscribers
those who get the magazine delivered or pay a fee to access premium online content.
At the time we did an accounting of Economist.com it was in the second tier in terms of custo'iIation, receiving
points for having a multiple-component search and several RSS feeds. t was also in the second tier on 'ulti4
'e!ia, due to the photos on the page several and podcast options.
ts weakest scores came in interactivity and !e"th, where it was in the bottom tier. A user-based blog (one
where the Web editor picks a topic of the day and users are invited to sound off on it) was essentially the only way
for users to participate on the site, hurting its interactivity score. And the site's twice daily updating as a
magazine site it seems less interested in being up-to-the-minute cost it points in out depth raking.
The site was in the top tier for the number of revenue streams it tapped. t was boosted by a significant number of
advertising combined with the content available for a fee helped its economic score.
But it was brand that stood out. The content here all comes from the staff of the magazine. This is not a place to
go to keep up with what's on the wire. Nor is there content from other publications in The Economist Group, which
includes Roll Call and European Voice.
Nonetheless, Economist.com does keep a steady flow of content coming by magazine standards. The top story is
new every day, as are the items in Today's Views which includes a staff column and a Correspondents Diary
(both unbylined) and Debate, a blog devoted to an interesting topic elsewhere on the Web. That is the closest
economist.com gets to outside sources for news. The online pieces are short in most cases, it appears, a bit
--0
shorter than the tightly written pieces that appear in the magazine but they attempt the same kind of news
blended with analysis for which the magazine is known.
One of the best features may be the staggering amount of data accessible here. Beyond the news and analysis
pieces there are entire separate sections like the site's Cities Guide, with information about happenings in 27
cities around the world, from Atlanta to Zurich. And there are the country briefings, which look at economic and
political news from countries around the world. They include recent stories from the magazine on each country and
an economic forecast, a fact sheet and information on the political structure of each.
For The Economist, which prides itself on giving readers data and raw facts along with its analysis, it is yet
another way to extend the brand.
The Wee( =$$$.the$ee('agaIine.co'>
The online home for The Week, www.theweekmagazine.com, can best be described as exactly that a place for
the online versions of the content that appears in the print title. t is a sparse environment, and appears by and
large to be an afterthought.
ts narrow, three-column format is evocative of a magazine page and fills only about half the screen. Only the
wider middle column holds real content, which is labeled n the Magazine. and features a large photo. The
narrow left column is saved for navigation. The current week's cover image is displayed prominently in the narrow
right-hand column (it links to a page where users can subscribe to the print version) and is followed down the
page by ads. Users coming to the site are greeted by only three images and three story links on their first screen.
All told, there are 24 links directly to stories on the page, an extremely low number among the sites we examined.
There is no place for breaking news and no attempt at posting daily staff-written content.
n fairness, The Week's format, which involves giving a weekly summary of news accounts from around the nation
and world, may not really be suited to the Web. First, publishing more often online goes against The Week's
raison d'etre: the premise that people are overloaded with information and need a simple, short synopsis of
events that they can carry with them. Second, if one wants a quick look at what's going on in the world from
several sources while online, online aggregators already offer many such services.
But that limited approach is ending. The magazine has announced it will soon launch a new Web site that will do
on a daily basis what the title does every week condense news from around the nation and world.
Looking at the rankings in our site inventory, The Week was not a big winner in much of anything. t scored well in
one category, bran!ing, where it was in the top tier because editors choose what content goes on the page and
all of it is generated in-house though it must be noted the content consists of summarize stories from other
outlets.
n all other categories, the site was in the bottom tier. There were, in essence, no opportunities for
custo'iIation.
3
The page's only 'ulti4'e!ia only components were the photos it ran. There were none of the
"artici"ation options (user blogs, author email addresses, live chats) we looked for on the site. The site was not
updated during the day (in fact only once a week, at the time of our inventory) which hurt its !e"th score. And the
site had few ads only six and no fee content which placed it near the bottom in revenue strea's.
While many people look at The Week as the print version of a Web aggregator, its Web presence pays little or no
heed to the capabilities of the nternet or the on-line world's 24-hour news cycle. t is the new-media home of a
very old-media approach.
The <thers1
e!s!ee6 9 Like Time.com, its well-known competitor, Newsweek.com shares its Web space with another news
organization MSNBC and like Time the site gives its partner high billing. Alongside the red Daily Edition
--1
Newsweek banner running over the page sits a smaller, blue MSNBC box on the left. The site itself is clean,
dominated by a white background and black text with red highlights, which helps make its four-column format
seem less crowded.
There is a link for users to get a mobile version of the site, multiple RSS feeds and a podcast of Newsweek on Air,
the radio show long produced by the magazine. And there are two ads that, as on Time.com, are for the same
product.
But unlike Time.com's variety, there is only Newsweek content here, and the magazine seems to be churning it
out at a pretty good clip. The top story, which sits on the upper left of the page with a large photo, is generally a
Web-only piece written for that day. And while there is some material from the actual magazine here, most of the
pieces are written specially for the Web and marked with Web only on the top. The site also does the
magazine's well-known up-and-down-arrow Conventional Wisdom watch feature every day, abbreviated here as
The Daily CW.
One possibly surprising thing about the site is how blogs, a favorite Web addition lately, are hidden well down the
page and subtly displayed. nstead, the magazine's current cover is emphasized, as are a lot of offers to
subscribe running up and down the site. Over all, the site looks and feels like something of a bridge between the
online and print world.
,(#( e!s : .orld Report 9 The word that comes to mind when one looks at site for U.S. News is sparse.
Unlike the sites of Time and Newsweek, it has no pronounced online affiliation with another news organization and,
perhaps for that reason, appears somewhat thin. Visually, the left 2/5 of the screen is empty and the only daily
updated material sits in a box on the right side at the top of the page.
While the site offers a mobile version, its RSS feed is weekly, and there are no podcasts. There is one ad on the
page along with many promotional messages to entice users to subscribe.
Of the three big news weeklies, U.S. News in some ways had the most to gain from a move to the Web. ts news-
you-can-use franchise translates well to the online world, where data is storable and sortable. And on
USNews.com the many special issues and lists that the magazine creates Best Colleges, Best Graduate
Schools, Beat Health Plans, etc. are given special treatment on the upper left of the screen, where most sites
put their navigational elements. There is limited access to these features, but to get any of them users have to
Go Premium for $14.95.
The site's daily content comes in the form of Today's Briefing on the page's top, which features a daily Campus
News Roundup (updated through the day) and the Political Bulletin (posted every morning). Brevity is the thing in
both of those areas, with items of a paragraph of two. There is also a Day in Photos link here with pictures from
around the country and world. Far down the page is Latest AP Headlines.
f this is the magazine's attempt to move itself online, it would appear that in the long term U.S. News will be less
about magazine pieces or even heavy reporting and more about quick hits and news you can use.
)ootnotes
1.Veronis Suhler Stevenson Communications ndustry Forecast, Consumer Magazines, p. 556
2.The page falls into three columns with the left one designated for site navigation and the other two the same
size. The center column is topped with a large red box labeled top story. The far-right column is topped with
boxes for Today's views, three new daily features the site added in December.
3.The home page, www.theweekmagazine.com, was not customizable. t offered no options for a mobile version
of the magazine and no RSS feed.
--2
/ublic Attitu!es
As with many other media, the evidence suggests that news magazines have seen their credibility with the public
erode in recent years. News magazines have long sat below television both cable and network in public
believability. n 2006, there was little evidence that much had changed.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press measures believeability on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4
being the highest. And in its 2006 Biennial Media Consumption survey those giving Time and U.S. News & World
Report the highest rating fell slightly. For Newsweek the rating climbed slightly, but the prevailing trend is clearly
downward.
1
*e$s %agaIine Believability <ver Ti'e
1999 vs. 2005
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Public More Critical of the Press, but Goodwill Persists June 26, 2005. Question 3.
What's more, the ratings for all three magazines measured continued to lag behind broadcast media.
2
Believability of +arious *e$s <utlets
--3
Percent of people who say they can believe most or all of what each outlet reports
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center of the People and the Press
t's interesting that it isn't necessarily the magazine style of writing that is holding the Big Three back, but perhaps
the fact that they are printed on paper. 60 Minutes, a broadcast magazine, actually scores higher on believability
than the news divisions as a whole. And it should be noted the three news weeklies cited in the survey on average
have the highest believability numbers of any print publication measured, other than the Wall Street Journal and
the person's local newspaper and that includes the New York Times, USA Today and the Associated Press.
3
Believability of +arious /rint <utlets
1999 vs. 2005
--4
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Public More Critical of the Press, but Goodwill Persists June 26, 2005. Question 3.
That finding opens the door to several interpretations. s there a point to the argument that people tend to distrust
the idea of objective media so much that they give more weight to outlets that offer more interpretation, or what
some might even consider bias outlets that write with a slant or a take as the weeklies like to call it? s it that
outlets that come out less frequently are thought to have spent more time on each item, and their news is
therefore more trustworthy?
As the magazines continue to talk about moving more of their operations to the Web, those two theories should get
something of a test.
f people are rewarding magazines for coming out less often, the migration to the Web theoretically could hurt the
magazine brands. One of the web's strengths, news on demand, is less about taking time to check facts and more
about immediacy. Other strengths of the Web searchable data bases and access to original materials are
also not the province of news weeklies, which synthesize material into more digestible form. Once the magazines
enter that game, if they truly try to compete and break news, will there be less separating them from other Web
outlets in the public's mind?
Those challenges presented by the Web may explain why magazines like the New Yorker are thriving in print. The
long-form narratives of the New Yorker in a stapled and small magazine format suit themselves more to the
portability of print than to the Web. A long New Yorker piece is not digested quickly on a PDA or read at the
computer. We take the time to read it on a train, or in an armchair.
f Time, Newsweek and U.S. News are to thrive on the Web, does the mission change? Does the nature of their
narrative change? Does the notion of being a weekly publication in itself disappear over time?
What ea!ers Cno$
For the vast majority of readers, news magazines are an extra source of news. Their subscribers are generally
thought to be more interested in news than average news consumers. n a world where news and information are
available in abundance, they pay to get an additional source of news delivered to their homes. What does their
desire for more news say about their news knowledge? Perhaps not as much as one might think. News magazine
readers are not particularly good students of the news. They know more than some news consumers and less
than others.
n the 2006 Pew Biennial Media Survey, 52% of respondents who said they had read a magazine yesterday and
--5
could correctly identify the Secretary of State. That was a lower score than respondents who said they had read a
newspaper yesterday, 55%, or read news online yesterday, 58%. But the magazine readers scored higher than
people who said they had watched TV news (47%) or listened to news on the radio the previous day (49%).
4
On a question involving foreign affairs can you name the current president of Russia? the findings for people
who had used various media yesterday were similar. Roughly 43% of magazine readers knew Vladimir Putin's
name. That was lower than newspaper readers and nternet users, of whom 47% and 50%, respectively, got the
answer right. But magazine readers did better than TV news viewers (37%) and radio news listeners (41%).
5
News magazine readers scored lower than newspapers readers, nternet users and radio listeners on the
question of which party was in control of the House of Representatives (before November's elections). Some 71%
of news magazine readers answered the question correctly, compared to 76% for newspapers readers, 73% for
radio listeners and 80% for nternet users.
6
Which /arty is in 0ontrol of the House of e"resentativesJ
Percent of 'regular' audiences answering question correctly
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
The meaning of those numbers is hard to know for certain. There is overlap in the data people use many media
every day but the numbers do suggest that the news magazine audience is not as elite as many believe. t's
interesting, for instance, that radio listeners, who use the lowest-cost media listed here no subscription cost,
free content and inexpensive receivers score higher than magazine readers on at least one of the questions.
t's also worth noting that news magazines as defined for this survey do not include the niche news titles we
discuss in this chapter The Economist, The Week and the New Yorker but rather the big news weeklies.
When we last looked at the question of audience knowledge, in our 2005 report, the audience of the big news
weeklies was broken out on its own and it was shown to rate higher than the audience knowledge of newspaper
readers on four questions on current events.
What's behind the change? t may be that that the audience changes this report has discussed for the past few
years declining readership at the big weeklies and growth of the niche news titles means that the niche
publications are cherry-picking more serious news audiences. t may be that the separation we're now seeing is
simply a matter of the questions that were asked this year. Or it may be a different reason altogether. Regardless,
the finding bears watching.
--6
)ootnotes
1. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Biennial Survey, Maturing nternet News Audience
Broader Than Deep: Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, pages 122-127
2. bid
3. bid
4. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Biennial Survey raw data, p. 936
5. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Biennial Survey raw data, p. 942
6. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Biennial Survey raw data, p. 930
<"inion Titles
Heading into 2007, the biggest issue for the opinion titles is the big political story from last November the
switch in the party control of Congress. The Democrats' winning of the House and Senate creates an interesting
dynamic not just in political power but, if history is any guide, also in the readership of the opinion journals.
As we have noted in this report in past years, the fortunes of such magazines tend to go up and down in an
inverse relationship to the fortunes of the political parties they favor. So the good times for the GOP in recent
years helped the readership of the left-leaning Nation grow to record levels, just as the first few years of the
Clinton Administration led to a big spike in readers for The National Review.
That pattern suggests that there will be some drop-off in readership in leftist publications as angry Democrats feel
some satisfaction, and an increase in right-leaning magazines as formerly content Republicans get their ire raised
and are eager to read critiques. And more center-left titles like The New Republic, often focused on policy
suggestions, could see a bump from Democrats looking for ideas on how to govern.
For 2007, though, the political landscape suggests a host of provisos for those truisms. The Democrats control
Congress, but President Bush is still ensconced in the White House. Many Republicans, meanwhile, while they
dislike the Democrats, are less than pleased with Bush, according to polls, and those mixed feelings may still
make them less likely to pick up a political journal. The increasingly unpopular war in raq could cause people to
grow more engaged in politics or push them away from it.
And, of course, the political backdrop of 2007 is likely to be the coming presidential race, which is wide open with
no obvious heir apparent in either party for the first time in decades. ntriguing candidates and/or internal party
squabbling could steer more readers to the opinion journals.
A look at the 2006 circulation figures for those magazines demonstrates the trend of complicated reverse party
trends of the group. The left-tilting Nation continued to grow slightly and lead the pack. The conservative National
Review lost some readers though it was not too far behind. Meanwhile, the New Republic, not really at either
ideological pole, was essentially flat, and far behind the other two.
1
There was also a big development with the New Republic just before the report was released. TNR was sold in
February to Winnipeg-based CanWest Global Communications, a Canadian newspaper publisher that had
already owned 30% of the magazine. mmediate terms of the deal were not available, but the company
announced one big change immediately. The 93-year-old weekly would begin to publish every other week, while
almost doubling the number of pages. That follows a noticeable thinning of the magazine in recent years.
---
t is important to point out that circulation isn't as critical a measure for those magazines as it is for others. The
opinion journals are ultimately as interested in the amount of political sway they hold in Washington and in who
their readers are as they are in the pure the bottom line. But circulation is not irrelevant. t indicates where
politically focused audiences on the right and left are going for ideas. Here's a look at where the magazines'
circulation stands today.
0irculation of Bea!ing <"inion %agaIines
1988-2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Audit Bureau of Circulation, annual audit reports and publisher's statements
The Nation,the stalwart voice of liberalism, continued its growth in 2006 albeit at a slower rate. As of December of
2006, it had a circulation of 186,528, just up from 184,181 the previous year an increase of 2,300, or just over
1%.
2
nterestingly, The Nation's circulation has been growing steadily since 1998. That was the year the Lewinsky
scandal hit the Clinton White House, and the mainstream coverage of Clinton grew more critical. n the elections up
to 2006 the Democrats remained unable to win back control of any of Washington's centers of authority. Will The
Nation's readers lose interest now that the Democrats are back in power?
There may be some reason to think so. Consider the jump the National Review saw leading up to the 1994 mid-
term elections. The conservative periodical went from 163,000 in 1992 (the year Bill Clinton was elected) to
269,000 in 1994. But after the GOP took control of Congress in that election, the Review's circulation dropped
back to 242,000 in 1995, then to 206,000 in 1996, then to 171,000 in 1997. By 1998 it was actually back to pre-
1992 levels at 160,000.
One reason The Nation might be different is the change in the media environment since then. Not only is the
political landscape considered to be more polarized now, but the Web in some ways feeds that polarization with
sites especially blogs devoted to particular points of view. The opinion journals know this and have taken
advantage of it, making their home pages the place to go for commentary.
--%
Both The Nation and National Review have Web-only content to draw readers looking for a left or right view of the
news.
And National Review. the conservative movement's traditional conscience, saw its circulation drop in 2006,
perhaps feeling the pull of the President Bush's slumping poll numbers. The title's December 2006 circulation of
152,603 was down 8,000 from 2004's 160,896 or more than 5%.
3
The magazine's success is worth pondering. The rise may have had something to do with the start of Bush's
second term and interest among conservatives about where he would try to take the country. t could be that
disappointment or confusion over the war in raq, and the splintering of Bush's coalition, led conservatives to
search for more voices. Or it could be the open field and the battle for the party after he leaves office.
The obvious question now is whether the Republicans losses in the midterm elections of 2006, and the
subsequent usual calls for soul-searching, will translate into even more readers for the National Review. t too has
parlayed its Web site into a force in online political debate more so than The Nation which may also help
explain the magazine's ability to buck the larger political trend and add subscribers during a time when historical
models suggest it would not.
Meanwhile, the New Republic continues to plug along with about 60,000 in circulation. After a drop from roughly
86,000 in 2002 to 61,000 in 2003, the magazine has stayed relatively stable. t gained a few more readers
between December of 2005 and December of 2006, going from 61,055 to 61,628.
4
Looking at the magazine in recent years, even the occasional reader might notice the issues are getting thinner.
The 2006 issues averaged just over 37 pages each. Going back to 1998, the average was just over 45 pages.
That's a decline of 21% over that period.
5
While good economic data aren't available on the opinion titles, such a
thinning would suggest that the New Republic has hit some economic turbulence. And the loss of readers
certainly hasn't helped with advertisers.
New owner CanWest is aiming to make the magazine profitable again while publishing only every other week
and wants to redesign TNR's Web site. The first edition of the new New Republic comes out March 19, though the
impact of the buyout won't be known for months at least.
There is, however, some hope that TNR might gain some readers back in 2007. Now that the Democrats are in
control the House and Senate they have talked about moving to the center particularly on social and fiscal
issues to consolidate power. Many of the Democratic freshmen in Washington are moderates. f there really is
a more centrist Democratic voice coming out of Washington, the New Republic might benefit in a few ways. t may
be the place the politically interested go to get an idea of which direction the party in power is going on various
issues and it may be a place where Democratic politicians go to publish essays and op-eds. The next few years
could give an indication whether the magazine's falling fortunes have ideological or editorial roots.
)ootnotes
1.The Audit Bureau of Circulations does not collect data on The Weekly Standard.
2.Audit Bureau of Circulations Audit Report for The Nation compared to previous years' data
3.Audit Bureau of Circulations Publisher's Statement for National Review compared to previous years' data
4.Audit Bureau of Circulations Publisher's Statement for the New Republic compared to previous years' data
5.PEJ research
--'
%agaIines
By The Project for Excellence in Journalism
Intro
After a decade of speculation that technology might render the news weekly obsolete, the field heading into 2007
seems at long last on the cusp of genuine change especially among the biggest titles.
The problems are clear enough. The Big Three traditional news weeklies were beset in 2006 by stagnant ad
pages, the continuing rise of new print competitors, and trouble maintaining the circulation numbers promised to
advertisers. All of that reflects the larger underlying dilemma, the challenge of producing weekly journalism in a 24-
hour news culture. The only surprise may be why it has taken so long for things to give.
Time, the giant of the news weeklies, took the lead in promising change. t announced a new publication date and
a new way of measuring audience that it hoped might soon combine print and online. t redesigned its Web site to
de-emphasize the print magazine. t also hinted, more cryptically, at a new editorial approach, one that is more
interpretive. Then it slashed more of its staff.
Newsweek, Time's traditional rival in chief, seems to be waiting and watching, ready to zig or zag after (it hopes)
learning from Time's mistakes or successes. That, too, involves risk. s Newsweek being smart, or is it just out of
ideas? f Time is on the right path, Newsweek may be left behind. f Time is making a brash but ill-conceived bet,
Newsweek may be well positioned letting others do the experimenting.
U.S. News & World Report, the smallest of the Big Three, seems content to play its own game and not focus on
what the others are doing. t was the first of the big weeklies to announce a new structure focused more on the
Web, doing so in 2005. Heading into 2007, however, the planned changes are not clearly evident on the site. And in
recent years the magazine's content has shifted to more policy-focused topics, part of a long-term effort to draw a
distinction between itself and the other two. Still, it seems likely to follow the lead of either of its rivals that scores a
big success.
The verdict may not come in the next year. But change on a more fundamental scale at the Big Three appears to
be starting.
n the meantime, rivals like The Week, The Economist and the New Yorker, all with distinct approaches unlike
those of Time and Newsweek, are winning readers the old fashioned way in print.
As for the opinion magazines, like The Nation and National Review, they have a new parade to watch, one that may
alter their fortunes. Their circulations can rise and fall according to which party is in power, and they are seeing a
power shift in Washington and political parties in transition.
Au!ience
The audience picture for news magazines varies markedly.
-%0
The magazines we refer to as the nontraditional titles The Economist, the New Yorker and The Week are
seeing their circulations grow, in some cases rapidly, and some are aiming to increase print circulation even more.
Yet the most conventional titles Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report continue to struggle to
hold on to readers and may be moving away from print in trying different strategies to win audience.
As a result, some publications may try to move to a new way to measure audience and sell ads, one that looks at
readership rather than circulation, with the goal of trying to combine print readership and Web visits.
Even such a new mode, however, is not all good news for the stalwart titles. The readership surveys they hope will
boost their audience numbers also reveal that those audiences, while wealthier than the overall population, are
also older. Meanwhile, their less traditional challengers in the field are reaching an audience that is young and
even wealthier.
Ti'e It Is a40hanginRS but Ho$ %uchJ
The shifting approaches to news magazines' audiences were most dramatically signaled in the moves by the
biggest, Time. t announced three major steps in 2006, all of which are expected to play out in the coming year.
First, Time announced that it was deliberately cutting the number of subscribers it promises to deliver to advertisers
(its so-called rate base) by 750,000
1
, while also raising its newsstand price. (Newsweek, the other big player, later
raised its cover price to $4.95 as well, but has not as yet cut its rate base)
Then Time announced a new delivery day, Friday, replacing its longstanding newsstand day of Monday. That
change coincided with a shift in content toward review and analysis of the week's news rather than trying to break
stories. That task, Time said, would be left to its Web site. (The announcements followed on U.S. News's pledge in
2005 to focus more on Web content.) Time also said the move to Friday might help it add advertisements aimed at
weekend shoppers.
Potentially the most far-reaching change, however, came in the new way Time said it wants to measure audience.
The magazine wants to move away from circulation completely as a metric and turn instead to overall readership(
To measure that, it intends to use online surveys from the firm Mediamark, a demographic research company.
Focusing on the readership numbers rather than circulation would create a radically different image of the reach of
Time as well as Newsweek and U.S. News. Time's 4 million
2
in print circulation yields about 22 million readers
3
according to MR data. (Newsweek's 3.1 in circulation
4
, meanwhile, nets 19 million readers
5
and U.S. News's 2
million
6
gives it 11 million readers
7
). Those reader numbers would presumably be adjusted upward if Web readers
were added to the mix, though how much is not clear. Time says the move is the first step toward our ultimate goal
of measuring the combined audience of our multi-media brand. But at the start, the readership numbers generated
from the survey will be based on print-only readership. Advertisers, meanwhile, can choose between Time's
reduced subscriber number or that print readership figure.
f the shift to measuring the magazine's combined audience is successful, and, soon, Time begins to sell ads
based on its combined print and online audience it will move Time toward being less a magazine than that new
thing in media, a multi-platform content provider, one with an audience that is potentially much larger than
anything measured in traditional circulation figures. f advertisers accept the changes and show an interest in
buying cross-platform ads, other magazines may follow suit and turn their attention to focusing more heavily on the
Web. But those remain big ifs.
While the changes at Time are dramatic they were in the early stages as 2007 began and could potentially
change the business structure of the news magazine field. But some kind of large-scale moves were not a
complete surprise. They represent a considered response to a major structural challenge.
The Big Three traditional news weeklies have been struggling for years to maintain circulation. While they
welcomed even small bumps in audience, there was a law of diminishing returns. The magazines were paying to
keep those numbers up through promotions and discounts. Some subscriptions have even come through third
-%1
parties who offer deep discounts and capture a big part of the actual fees from the subscribers
For the big weeklies, that was acceptable, if sometimes painful, because it meant big circulation numbers that
allowed them to keep ad rates high. But as the nternet posed greater challenges, the cost of maintaining
circulation rose. And the value of a big print circulation also has to be weighed against the costs of printing and
mailing the issues of the magazines, both of which have risen.
*u'bers Di" Again for the Biggest Titles
n 2006, Time and Newsweek were both slightly up in audited circulation the first small bump each had seen in a
few years but essentially flat. U.S. News also saw a small bump, its second consecutive, but was still below its
numbers from 2003.
8
n general, all these magazines have seen flat circulation for the past several years. And experts note that the
figures would likely be declining if the weeklies did not fight hard to keep the figures up by offering subscribers big
discounts.
0irculation A'ong the Big Three *e$s %agaIines
1988 - 2006
1.500 Ui44444448444444844444484444484444448444444844444484444448444444844444484444448444444844444r4
o D ( ! 8 t > t L j g i 8 4 n t o i 8 8 + o a D o g c g
Dear
k k >e9s9ee4
[jTime
Q U.S. News
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations, annual audit reports & publisher's statements Circulation figures are averages for the second quarter annually
-%2
of the 4 million in circulation it promises its advertisers. That suggests a struggle to stay above that critical line, and
is a likely factor in the reduction in the rate base. Second, the 2006 circulation number, while an increase over
2004 and 2005, was lower than any other figure we had seen for Time between 1988 and 2003.
10
The audience news for Newsweek appears to be on a similar path. Again, the increase was very small, to 3.118
million in 2006 from 3.117 million the year before, also less than 1%.
11
But that total, was the second lowest
circulation number recorded for the magazine in the time for which we have data 2005 was the lowest. The figure
places Newsweek just 18,000 in circulation above its rate base of 3.1 million and may lead the magazine to
consider cutting its base somewhat, if not as dramatically as Time.
And while U.S. News circulation was up for the second straight year in 2006, the moves were very small and the
figures don't seem to bode any better for long-term trends. The publication continued to bump along at right about
the 2 million mark. ts 2.036 million for 2006 was an increase of 2,000 over 2005, less than 1%.
12
Since 2000, U.S.
News has hovered right around its rate base of 2 million staying between 2.086 million and 2.022 million. One
question is, were Newsweek to cut its base, would U.S. News follow in order to save on its cost of maintaining that
circulation?
The future for both magazines may rest with Time, the leader now not just in audience but in the way it wants
Madison Avenue to think about audience. f Time is successful in its move toward using readership including
Web readership as its base for ad rates, that could amount to a revolution, one that others, it seems, including the
newspaper industry, would likely try to follow.
t is also possible, ironically, that U.S. News or other publications may be best situated to capitalize on the
proposed new measurement. Time is in the midst of figuring out exactly what its more Web-based approach will
look like. Newsweek, for the time being anyway, is primarily relying on its connection to MSNBC for its Web traffic.
But U.S. News already had a jump on trying to focus on the Web, announcing its intent in 2005. And its heavy
news you can use content, full of information on colleges, graduate programs, hospitals, etc., already has
something of a database feel on parts of its site.
Users of U.S. News's site have to pay for those premiums, but they could be used to drive traffic and Web ads. The
broader online-and-print readership measurement model also opens the door for some other publication one
that may not be burdened with the costs of a print structure to enter the field.
The Au!iences for the <ther *e$s Titles
The shifts proposed by Time stand in marked contrast to the story of the nontraditional new weeklies. Magazines like
The Economist, the New Yorker and The Week are not only seeing growth in the circulation of their print products,
they are actively aiming for more.
Some are aggressively seeking to expand, such as The Economist, and some are growing more organically, as
The Week's editor, Bill Falk, puts it. And some of them are doing it while charging more for their publications than
the big weeklies.
Whatever their approach, they offer evidence that, first, print is not yet dead, and second, that hard circulation
numbers can still be desirable. Even in the dawning Web era, Falk wrote to PEJ in an e-mail, there is a role for a
print magazine that is edited for the way busy people live today.
Consider the differences in the circulation of these titles over the past five years. n 2000, Time, Newsweek and U.S.
News had a combined circulation of about 9.3 million. By contrast, The Economist and the New Yorker in 2000 had
a combined circulation of about 1.2 million.
13
That was a ratio of about 8 to 1.
For 2006, the three traditional weeklies, after Time's cuts, will show a combined print circulation of about 8.4
million.
14
The Economist, the New Yorker and The Week will be more than 2.1 million
15
over all. That is a ratio of less
than 4 to 1. Looked at that way, in six years the alternative news weeklies will have cut the print dominance of the
Big Three almost by half.
-%3
0irculation of *on4Tra!itional *e$s %agaIines
1988 - 2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Audit Bureau of Circulations, annual audit reports & publisher's statements *The Atlantic is a monthly magazine
The fastest-growing of the alternatives is The Week, the publication owned by the British company Dennis
Publishing that edits news accounts from other organizations into short capsules for readers. From 2005 to 2006,
The Week added over 75,000 in circulation, climbing to 443,952 from 366,758 an increase of 21%.
16
And the
magazine's rate base has was bumped up to 400,000 in 2006, a rise of 100,000 over it 2005 base. That kind of
increase allows the magazine to increase what it's charging for ads. The numbers are even more impressive when
one considers that it was launched in 2001.
The news magazine world's other British import, The Economist, also had another good year, climbing over the
half-million mark in U.S. circulation for the first time in its history. As of December 2006, it had a circulation of
639,205, a gain of roughly 70,000, or 12%, from 569,366 in 2005.
17
That growth, moreover, follows a long-term
trend. The Economist has seen its U.S. audience grow in each of the 17 years for which we have data a feat
unmatched by any of the other titles we follow. And it has made known its desire to reach 1 million, in large part
because as an English-language magazine, if considers the U.S. a critical market.
The New Yorker similarly continued its upward trajectory in 2006. The title, which broke the million mark in 2005,
rose to 1.067 million in 2006 from 1.051 the year before an increase of over 16,000, or about 1.5%.
18
That figure
is an all-time high.
As we have noted in recent years, the New Yorker has become newsier as it has grown, an approach that,
among other things, may have helped draw a different crop of readers to its pages. But with its focus on long
pieces, the arts, poetry and New York and Washington, the New Yorker is also a magazine for elites. How high can
an elite circulation climb?
Jet magazine, aimed at African Americans, saw a down 2006. Circulation dropped to 901,594, down from 948,694 in
2005 a decrease of about 47,000, or about 5%.
19
That 2006 figure, however, was still above 2004 - 2002
circulation numbers and just above its rate base of 900,000.
After a few years of deliberately trimming circulation, The Atlantic, the only monthly we measure, is sitting right at
the cusp of 400,000. ts 2006 circulation of 404,688 was just slightly up from the title's 2005 number of 403,636
-an increase of less than 1%.
20
-%4
t's not yet clear how far The Atlantic intends to cut circulation, but the number it promised advertisers may provide
a hint. As of April 2005, the rate base was only 355,000.
21
That means there is still room for further cuts. The
strategy is intriguing, considering the jumps at other highbrow titles like the New Yorker and The Economist.
Bradley has stated in the past that his goal is to shrink the magazine's circulation and aim for a more exclusive
niche.
Behind all the changing fortunes, the differentiation of traditional from nontraditional news magazines may be
getting less and less salient. f Time indeed is moving more toward commentary, the New Yorker has moved more
toward breaking news.
n turn the three traditional news weeklies, so long noted for their similarities, in time may be more notable for their
differences.
Who Are the ea!ersJ
News magazine readers continue to represent something of an elite audience. They are wealthier than the U.S.
population at large, according to reader surveys by Mediamark Research. n 1997 (the first year The Atlantic joined
the Mediamark survey) the average household income of news magazine readers was $50,807, compared to
$39,035 for the general population, a spread of 30% and more than $11,000. By 2005 news magazine readers'
average household income was $67,000, compared to $51,466 for the general population, still a 30% gap but a
difference in dollars of more than $15,000.
22

23
Along with that pattern, which advertisers might consider good news, news magazines also do not skew quite as
old as many other media. Over all, news magazine audiences are consistently about two years older than the U.S.
population. From 1997 to 2005, the median age of the news weekly readers in the survey went from 44.1 to 46.3.
24
The median U.S. adult population in that time went from 41.8 years old to 44.
25
Most other news sectors have
average audiences ages of over 50. For network news, the average is roughly 60.
Readership data also suggest that there may be some market for younger audiences here.
For the first time since we have kept track, Mediamark has added The Economist to its survey, and the results are
surprising. The Economist has the youngest audience of any of the news magazines we examine at 40.1 years
old it's even younger than Jet's 41.4 and it is the richest audience as well, with a household income of $96,257
that easily outstrips The Atlantic's $83,984.
26
The bad news is that both of those titles have small readerships (as distinct from circulation) compared to the
biggest news magazines. The Economist, for example, has about 1.7 million readers, but Time has more than 22
million and Newsweek more than 19 million.
27
That suggests that if there is a young news audience out there, it may
be a small one, and it may be going off in its own direction away from the more mass-audience titles. t also may
further explain why Time wants to push readership, if the number of different people who see each copy of the
magazine the so-called pass-along rate is so high.
%e!ian Age of ea!ershi"s by %agaIine
1995-2006
-%5
Source: MediaMark Research, ''Magazine Audience Estimates''
Design Your Own Chart
%e!ian Inco'e
of ea!ershi" by
%agaIine
1995-2006
45,000 H------------1
-----------------------1---------
ID to h4
0< 0< 0D 0D
0< 0D
4444444844444
en
0D
444444
84444
0D 0D
0D
| | Newsweek
|~[ Time
[J U.S. News
Source: MediaMark
Research, ''Magazine
Audience Estimates''
Design Your Own Chart
The Economist's demographic numbers,
nonetheless, represent a departure from the
structure of the Mediamark survey numbers in the
past. Generally it was the older titles that had
wealthier readers, with the oldest, The Atlantic
average age over 50, average income over $80,000
as case in point.
28
-%6
Those addition of the Economist's readers to the survey on the one hand raise the median household income of
news magazines readers to $70,409 for 2006 more than $28,000 above the median U.S. household income,
according to Mediamark. That figure would be by the far the largest difference we have measured. The Economist
readers would also put the median age of news magazine readers at 45.6 years old, putting it closer to the national
median of 44.3 years than it has been since 2003.
29
Average Inco'e of *e$s %agaIines ea!ers
Compared to U.S. population, 1995-2006
News Magazines
Design Your Own Chart
Source: MediaMark Research, ''Magazine Audience Estimates''
-%-
Average Age of *e$s %agaIine ea!ers
Compared to U.S. population, 1995-2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: MediaMark Research, ''Magazine Audience Estimates''
Those numbers might only serve to show how little such overall averages mean. Two magazines sit below the
national age median Jet with a median average age of 41.4 and The Economist with a median of 40.1. All the
other news titles we measure are above it. (ncidentally, The Week, which isn't yet included in the Mediamark
survey, has a subscriber median income of $93,000 and an average age of 48. Again, though, those figures are for
subscribers, not for readers reader numbers include a much broader base of people and generally skew
younger and less wealthy.)
30
0onclusion
There are a many lingering questions about the future of news magazine audiences going into 2007. Will Time's
Web strategy and new delivery day have an impact on its audience? And, perhaps more importantly, how will
-%%
advertisers react to Time's audience-tallying approach? Will the smaller nontraditional magazines pay any heed to
Time's moves? Right now these titles are seeing growth and seem more than happy to stick with traditional
audience measures and hard-copy publications. Will one approach win out? s it in fact an either/or proposition?
The answers may not emerge in the next year. But they hold promise in time of reshaping the news magazine field.
SID-BA
To"ics in the Wee(lies
The Web Site profiles in our digital section offer a look at what online readers get when they click on the sites of the
news magazines we examine. But what about the old-media part of what they do? Halls Magazine Reports tallies
the topics in the pages of the Big Three news weeklies, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report, to give
a picture of what is actually in those pages year to year.
What did the pages of the big news weeklies look like through the first eight months of 2006? National affairs was
the biggest single segment of content, as it almost always is, but it was down ever so slightly to 24.9% in the first
months of 2006 versus 25% in 2005. That was a bit of a surprise because 2006 was a mid-term election year
and, it turned out, an unusually significant one. But keep in mind that those first eight months include the summer,
when most titles run lighter content and do not include the fall run-up to the election and post-election analysis.
31
See
chart.
The next largest topic in the Big Three weeklies was global/international, which made up 18.8% of the pages in the
first eight months of 2006, up from 16.2% in 2005. among other topics, entertainment/celebrity took a small drop, to
7.7% from 8.2%, while health/medical science grew slightly to 10.5% from 10%.
32
Title by Title
But under those broad average figures there are wide differences between each of the titles included in the Hall's
survey. And those differences reflect different news agendas.
National affairs, for instance, made up almost a third of coverage in U.S. News at 30.9% in the first eight months of
2006, but only about a fifth of the coverage in Newsweek at 20.5%. Time sat between the two with 23.3%. Time's
and Newsweek's 2006 national affairs numbers were actually down when compared to all of 2005, but U.S. News
was up slightly.
33
See Chart.
U.S. News is also the leader in percentage terms in global/international news. The magazine devoted 21.2% of its
pages to the issue area through August 2006, compared to 18.8% for Time and16.4% for Newsweek. n fact, U.S.
News led in business and health coverage as well, devoting 11.1% and 13.5% of its pages to the topics
respectively. Time did the least business coverage and medical coverage and Newsweek was between the two.
34
Time led the way in celebrity/entertainment coverage with 11.5% of its pages on the topic. Newsweek was a close
second at 10.9%. U.S. News barely covered the topic at all nine-tenths of one percent of its pages.
35
The topic breakdown shows that the three magazines are distinctly different and that one, U.S. News, is hewing to
a more traditional news agenda. t is carving out a hard-news niche among the three magazines and avoiding the
broadest general-interest news magazine approach taken by its two bigger-circulation siblings. That may be a
factor in the smaller size of the audience for the U.S. News, but perhaps in the long run it's a more devoted one.
The *e$ Dor(er
Maybe it was the war in raq or the coming election or both, but The New Yorker was newsier through the first eight
months of 2006 than it was in all of 2005. National affairs coverage rose to 12.2% of all pages, compared to 9.1%
in 2005. And global/international coverage was up to 7.1% of pages compared to 5.1% in 2005.
36
-%'
Those 2006 figures for the heavier news topics mirror almost perfectly the magazine's topic selection in 2004, the
year of the last presidential election. Those numbers suggest what many already intuit from reading the
magazine: t has become newsier over time, but specifically more political weighing in on big national debates
to take stands (and hammering away at President Bush). See chart.
At the same time, the New Yorker's two biggest topics continued to be culture, with 21% of its pages, and
entertainment/celebrity at 23.4%.
)ootnotes
1. Time announcement, Ed McCarrick, worldwide publisher, November 11, 2006
2. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Time.
3. Mediamark Research, Magazine Audience Estimates 2006.
4. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Newsweek.
5. Mediamark Research, Magazine Audience Estimates 2006 .
6. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for U.S. News & World Report .
-. Mediamark Research, Magazine Audience Estimates 2006 .
%. Latest Time and Newsweek statements compared to previous annual report data .
'. Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Time compared to previous annual report data .
10.Previous annual report data.
11.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Newsweek compared to previous annual report data.
12.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for U.S. News compared to previous annual report data.
13.Previous annual report data.
14.Total of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News Publisher's Statements minus 750,000 .
15.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Economist, the New Yorker and The Week .
16.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Week compared to previous annual report data.
1-.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Economist compared to previous annual report
data .
1%.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for the New Yorker compared to previous annual report data.
1'.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for Jet compared to previous annual report data.
20.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Atlantic compared to previous annual report data.
21.Audit Bureau of Circulations publisher's statement for The Atlantic.
-'0
22.Mediamark Research data from previous years
23.Magazine readers have traditionally been figured at about three for each issue. n other words, each subscriber
a magazine reports or each issue it sells at the newsstand is estimated to equal three readers. Why is there a
difference in the figures reported in the readership section of this report? The Mediamark survey used here works a
little differently. n it, 25,000 respondents are interviewed one-on-one in person and shown the logos of various
titles and asked (for weeklies) if they have read or looked into the magazine in the last seven days. The data the
survey yields are considered the best available for magazine readership.
24.Mediamark Data from previous years
25.bid
26.Mediamark Research, Magazine Audience Estimates 2006.
2-.bid
2%.bid
2'.bid
30.bid
31.Hall's Reports research. Unpublished data. www.hallsreports.com
32.bid
33.bid
34.bid
35.bid
36.bid
-cono'ics
After a hard 2005 for ad pages, many in the news magazine business were hoping for a rebound in 2006. t didn't
happen.
For most of the magazines we examine, 2006 was a year with marginal gains in pages of 2% or less. The
exceptions were the New Yorker, which stood out for having a particularly bad year, and National Journal, which had
an unusually good one.
1
Ad pages over all declined ever so slightly a tenth of a percent among the 250 publications that list with the
Publisher's nformation Bureau. Early in the year there was some hope that improvement on Wall Street might
translate to the industry, but by the year's end the hope had vanished.
2
Some analysts also suggest that the industry is becoming less tied to economic cycles than to the changing media
landscape. According to the Veronis Suhler Stevenson Communications ndustry Forecast, the slowing in ad
revenues for magazines as a whole that started in 2005 will continue as people and advertisers divert their
-'1
attention to other media.
3
With continued declines expected in both ad revenues and circulation, Time magazine will offer advertisers the
opportunity to figure ad rates by counting overall readers, not just subscribers, and cut its ad rates. But the test for all
the titles may be how well they handle moving to the Web, something magazines have been slow at doing. (See
Digital.)
The e!s Titles
The news magazines largely follow the advertising trends of the industry overall, with few exceptions.
One of those exceptions was the New Yorker. Even as it picked up readers, its ad pages dipped by nearly 13% in
2006 and that followed a 3% drop in 2005. Even dollars, which usually at least appear to be up because of the
way magazines design their rate cards to show steady increases, were down 5.2%.
4
There are a few possible reasons for the declines. The magazine's highly successful publisher, David Carey,
stayed within the Conde Nast empire, but changed publications moving over to aid the launch of the company's
new business magazine Portfolio. And in an age of specialization and niche advertising especially with the Web
the more generalized content of the New Yorker may not be as appealing to advertisers. f so, the magazine
may be in for some tough times.
t should be noted that while this report cites ad dollars, those numbers are not as reliable a measure of financial
success as pages. Total dollars are figured by multiplying pages by rates on each title's ad card, and the cards are
notoriously inaccurate. Experts in the industry say ad revenues in reality are often about half what the magazines
report them to be. Thus despite figures showing healthy increases year-in and year-out, some titles are not
profitable.
0hange in A! Dollars an! /ages. Select %agaIines
2005 vs. 2006
-20-
Atlantic Economist Jet National New Newsweek Time U.S. Journal Yorker
[J Ad Dollars
F" Ad Pages
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Publisher's nformation Bureau
At the other end of the spectrum was National Journal, the boutique policy journal published by David Bradley. t
saw a 13% increase in ad pages in 2006. (t should be noted that the publication has less than half the ad page of
the other, larger titles we track, including the New Yorker.) Total dollars were up even more, 18.9%. Part of the
success may be linked to the 2006 election. The mid-term vote generated huge media and voter attention down the
-'2
stretch as people realized that it could end up being exceptionally meaningful.
5
Elsewhere, the biggest titles Time, Newsweek and U.S. News saw essentially flat trajectory in ad pages.
Time's pages were up .8%, while Newsweek's were up a scant .1%. U.S. News rose slightly more, 1.9%.
6
But again, after 2005 when all three the titles were down Time and Newsweek by double digits it was hard for
the titles to feel good about 2006. n total dollars, regarded as the less meaningful measure, all the titles at least
reported more respectable numbers. Time's dollars were up 4.7%, Newsweek's 2.2%, and U.S. News's 4%.
7
Among the other titles we watch, The Economist posted minimal gains in pages up 1.1% but a much larger
increase 16.7% in reported ad dollars. How to explain the big jump? One possibility is that the magazine has been
adding subscribers at a good clip in recent years (see Audience) and at some point those new readers turn into
higher ad rates.
8
The same might be said for The Week, which actually caps the number of ad pages in every issue to keep its
content/ad ratio constant. t added only four pages in 2006 a .7% increase but reported a 34% increase in ad
revenues. Again the growth in ad revenue is attributed to the magazine's growing subscriber base.
9
The Atlantic Monthly and Jet were both largely flat in pages the former down 1% and the latter up 1% but the
Atlantic reported an increase of 16.6% in revenue on its drop. That figure seems high for a publication losing
readers, though perhaps the richer demographic it's reaching (see Audience) helps boost profits. Jet, meanwhile,
reported a more restrained ad dollar increase of 3.8%
10
That's one year's data. But looking at ad dollars, and particularly pages, over time shows how things have soured for
the Big Three titles since the late 1990s.
*e$s %agaIines A! /ages. by Title
1988-2006
10200
n
-
$
1
--
1-
--
1-
--
1-
--
1-
--
1-
--
1-
- -
1-
- -
1-
--
1-
--
1-
--
1-
$
1
$1----
I
00 C" C C C C" C" C" C" C" C" O
o
O

J
C" C" C
"
C
"
C
"
C" C" C" C" C" C" o o
O
Year
[J Time
| | Newsweek
[J U.S. News
Source: Publisher's nformation Bureau annual reports
Design Your Own Chart
-'3
*e$s %agaIines A! Dollars. by Title
1988-2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Publisher's nformation Bureau annual reports
Even with the slight improvement over last year, Time's ad pages are down in the territory they occupied in the
early 1990s. Newsweek's are down to where they were in 2001, of the year of 9/11. The numbers for U.S News
look slightly better, but only because the magazine has had such a bad run lately from 1988 to 2000 it had more
ad pages every year than it did in 2006.
And the numbers for the other news titles aren't very good either. From 1988 to 2002, The Economist had more ad
pages every year than it did in 2006. The New Yorker's 1,937 ad pages are the lowest total we have seen in all the
years we have on record back to 1988.
11
Despite an occasional good year here or there, the trend for the news titles is not a sunny one. The numbers have
looked especially gloomy as broadband nternet use has taken off. n November 2003, some 35% of online users
were getting online through some high-speed connection. By the beginning of 2006, it was 61%. The economic
outlook for magazines is not clear, but it looks as if it could be uncomfortable even for some of the biggest, oldest
titles.
12
That was, in part, what was behind Time's announcement in late 2006 that it was looking to change the way it
measure its audience, cut its ads rates 19% and bump up its cover price.
13
The Changing Picture of "aga0ine Economics
f Time wants to measure its audience by readership rather circulation, how would that work? The magazine plans
to work with Mediamark Research's new ssue Specific Accumulation study, which surveys 2,500 adults each week
online and asks them whether they have read specific issues of magazines. t will only measure the print versions
of them for now, though Time says it sees this as the beginning of measuring its total online and print audience.
-'4
The approach is an nternet version of the way Mediamark does its annual reader survey with data on specific
issues of the titles. The goal is to give the magazines and their advertisers a better idea about which cover issues
attract readers, with data that are solid enough to replace circulation figures.
The news that Time was raising its cover price is significant as well (particularly if the increase bleeds over into
subscription prices) because it will increase the share of Time's revenues that come directly from readers. Some
skeptics wonder whether the move is mostly a gimmick an attempt by Time to lure readers with deeper
discounts on subscriptions. Time, however, says the cover price increase comes as it is making a concerted effort
to cut discount subscriptions from its rolls. t has trimmed its rate base by 750,000 subscribers (see Audience)
many of which it says were brought in through third-party discount subscription sellers. The move also gained extra
weight when Newsweek raised its cover price to match Time's. Time's cover price increase (combined with the
rate-base cut) suggests that it may be moving toward to the British model of magazine funding readers pay a
premium price, so circulations are smaller but ultimately from more loyal and generally wealthier readers.
Time may also be turning to a two-tier revenue strategy, that is, selling different news products. The magazine will
be charging more for its hard-copy product, but at the same time editors say they plan to rely more heavily on
Time.com for breaking news. Currently, at least, Time.com is a free site, which receives revenues only through
advertising, and online ads are known to be worth a small fraction of print ones. The result could be two different
products that essentially tap separate revenue streams. There will be the shrinking print side, increasingly a
weekend summary of the news for which readers will have to pay more than they once did. And a growing free
online side, which will offer more in the way of breaking news and generate only ad revenue.
Right now Time.com is extremely light on advertising, a situation that could change as the site is leaned on more
heavily for readership.
f there is a danger in such an approach it may be the potential for diluting a weekly's brand. Will the Web's ad-only
revenue stream generate enough money to make up for the losses the magazine will experience with its rate-base
cut? Will one side, say print, be forced to subsidize the other and for how long?
Those are some serious questions that will be answered in the next few years. Time's experiment an
experiment not by a small title, but the industry leader is important.
A Boo( at the A!s in the *e$s Titles
One method of learning about the economics of a magazine is to examine where the advertising comes from. That
offers some reflection, among other things, of the diversity of a magazine's economic base, its vulnerability to
change, and some sense of how Madison Avenue views the publication.
A look at ads in some of the news titles in 2005 and 2006 shows some major differences.
The biggest change may be the decline of auto ads not exactly a surprise. But if 2005 was a down year for such
ads, 2006 was dreadful. The Publisher's nformation Bureau found that auto ad pages were down 14% in 2006 in
all magazines.
14
The good news for the news magazines, at least partly good news, is that other advertisers, it seems, have filled
the gaps particularly banks and other financial companies and computer and other technology companies. Why
might that be only partly good news? Because finding out what magazines charge for ads is difficult, and if the
decline in auto ads has reduced competition for magazine ad space, the magazines might be selling those pages
at reduced rates.
What follows is a look at the ads in three different kinds of news magazine: Time (America's first news weekly),
The Economist (the growing foreign import that focuses on recapping the week's events) and the New Yorker (the
longstanding literary weekly that has developed a news bent). For each we compared issues from the week of
September 25 in 2006 the week that corresponds with our digital content analysis (see Digital).
83
The two biggest ad buyers in Time were computer and electronics companies (14 pages of ads) and banks and
-'5
financial companies (12 1/3 pages). Both those totals were more than double the tallies from 2005. But car ads fell
by about half, to 5 pages in 2006 including one from German sportscar manufacturer Porschefrom 9 pages in
2005.There was also a big package of ads in the back of the 2006 issue marking Life nsurance Awareness
Month 7 pages from a non-profit life insurance group and 8 pages from various insurers. Other big advertisers
were drugs and pharmaceuticals (11 pages), clothes and fashion (4 pages) and books and media (4-plus pages).
The magazine had a whopping 87-plus pages of ads in the 110-page issue.
The Economist also leaned heavily on banks and finance for ads in 2006, carrying 13 pages compared with 7
pages of such ads in the 2005. There were differences from Time, though, in the ads. While many of Time's ads
were for things like credit card companies, many of The Economist's financial ads were more far-flung for Credit
Suisse and for the Qatar Financial Centre.
The other big ad drivers in the magazine are also a departure from what one finds in most U.S. news magazines
classified ads (14 pages) for positions like representative of the Ford Foundation in Vietnam and for the
Australian Secret Service. And there are 12 pages of ads for educational courses leading to MBAs and other
degrees in various locales around the world. That's not to say there were no similarities with Time, however. Both
magazines ran the same ad for the food giant ADM and Microsoft's Windows mobile. There were 66-plus pages of
ads in the 114-page issue of the Economist.
The September 25 issue of the New Yorker in 2006 was interesting because it was not a normal issue, but one
devoted especially to style. And in a down year for ad pages for the magazine, a perusal of the issue's pages
shows the advantages of putting a specific focus on an issue. There are more than 39 pages of clothing and
fashion ads here, far and away the largest ad buyer for the issue.
The next-highest advertising group, hotels and travel, has only 13 pages. And most of the fashion ads look less like
ads than photo shoots whether they are elegantly lit black and white or perfectly selected hues of green or grey.
The focus on style might also explain why that issue of the New Yorker was the exception where car ads were
concerned. t had more than 11 pages of car ads, more than twice as many as we saw in the 2005 issue. Some
were not the usual advertisers, though; ads for Jaguar, Mercedes and Saab were all focused on design. The other
big ad buyer was hotels and travel, which again featured upper-crust hotels like Renaissance, which had a four-
page pull out, and Preferred. t was an up ad week for the New Yorker, with roughly 90 pages of ads out of 158
total pages.
0onclusion
The year 2007 could prove pivotal to the magazine industry and news magazines specifically. After a series of
down years, there is no projected upturn on the horizon, and falling subscriber bases may be leading advertisers to
look elsewhere to spend their dollars. The biggest news weeklies and the New Yorker, which had a very hard
year may be the most vulnerable. They have broad audiences and do not offer advertisers the specific targeted
niches they are increasingly interested in, and that they can reach on the Web.
Time's experiment, using readers rather than subscribers to set ad rates, may prove an important step. t would
allow the titles to further integrate their Web sites with their hard copies and perhaps make the magazines more
appealing to advertisers. But the outlook for that experiment remains unclear.
)ootnotes
1. Publisher's nformation Bureau Reports, January-December 2006 vs. 2005
2. bid
3. Veronis Suhler Stevenson Communications ndustry Forecast, Consumer Magazines, p. 557
4. Publisher's nformation Bureau Reports, January-December 2006 vs. 2005
5. bid
-'6
6. bid
-. bid
%. bid
'. bid
10.bid.
11.bid
12.Pew nternet and American Life Project Tracking Survey January 13, 2006, p. 15
13.Time Announcement, Ed McCarrick, November 11, 2006
14.Publisher's nformation Bureau 2006 Magazine Advertising Statement.
15.t should be noted that out 2005 ad inventory was done in May to correspond with that year's content.
<$nershi"
There was no change in rankings of the top 10 magazine companies in 2005 (the latest year for which data is
available), but there was movement within them. Titles are being sold and bought. New launches are being
prepared. And much of the new landscape's look is being determined again by the industry leader, Time Warner,
which is selling off some of its magazine holdings and slashing staff at others.
Meanwhile, where the online world is concerned, things are moving slowly in a few different directions. The move to
the Web was always likely to be more complicated for news magazines, a medium that was never focused around
timeliness the way others, like TV or even newspapers, were. Thus far, they've adapted unevenly.
Though Ti'e Warner is still the largest of the large owners, the gap is rapidly closing as the company prunes
properties. Time Warner saw its total magazine revenue fall to $4 billion in 2005 billion from $4.8 billion the
previous year a drop of 17%. n part it was due to a miscalculation in 2004 of what segment of the company's
revenue came from magazines the book division was mistakenly included by Ad Age, which collects and
calculates the data.
1

2
Meanwhile, A!vance /ublications, which owns Conde Nast, has become a much bigger No. 2, with net revenues
climbing to $3.4 billion from $2.4 billion, an increase of 42%. t is now closing in on Time Warner, in part because it
is buying properties and expanding its Web presence.
3
The No. 3 company, Hearst. had a quieter year with no big acquisitions or sales. Still, revenues for the company
were up about 16% from previous year, climbing to $2.1 billion from $1.8 billion.
4
%agaIine evenue of To" Ten 0o'"anies. 2003
-'-
Source: Advertising Age, Chart: Top 25 Magazine Companies
Design Your Own Chart
Those three
companies' combined
revenues dwarf the rest
of the top 10
companies combined.
But the top two appear
to be charting different
courses.
Time nc. spent some
of last year fighting off a
bid by the investor Carl
cahn to break up the
company, and while it
remains largely intact,
its plan to sell off 18
titles suggests it wants
to become smaller and
more focused. The
publications for sale
were targeted niche
brands that stand apart
from such broader titles
as People, Time and
Sports llustrated.
Niche publications
remain good magazine
business, but are not
the direction,
apparently, in which
Time Warner wants to
go. And the titles the
company is holding on
to are cutting staff. n
short, this does not look
like a company looking
to grow, at the moment
anyway.
Advance, meanwhile,
is still looking to add
titles. n July, the
company, which owns
Wired magazine,
bought Wired.com, its
online home. For eight
years the two platforms
for Wired have actually
been held by different
companies. Advance
also is preparing to
launch a new high-
profile business
magazine, Portfolio, in
May. That one is a
highly anticipated
gamble. Advance
brought in some big
names to join the effort, including David Carey from
the New Yorker as publisher and Joanne Lipman
from the Wall Street Journal as editor.
*e$s %agaIine <$ners
Aside from Time, the other news magazines
owners did not make any major changes in 2005.
As we enter 2007 they are likely waiting to see
what happens with Time's readership gambit. f
that falls flat, the magazine and the company
may have suffered from the effort.
The Washington /ost 0o'"any, which owns
Newsweek, is having magazine troubles. For the
latest year for which there are data, 2005,
magazine revenues fell to $345 million, a decline of
almost 6% from $366 million in 2004. Newsweek is
the primary cause for the rough times. For the Post
Company's limited magazine holdings, a bad year
at Newsweek means a bad year for the magazine
portfolio. And that is likely to be truer in 2007,
because in December 2006 the company sold its
technology titles, including Government Computer
News, Washington Technology, Government
Leader and Defense Systems. Over all, the drop in
magazine revenue pushed the Post Company from
being the nation's 15 th largest magazine company
to being the 16th.
5
But the Post Company has diversified holdings and
is expanding in other media. n 2006 it purchased
AM and FM radio stations in Washington on which
it simulcasts news/talk programming. The stations,
like all terrestrial radio, are local, but on the air they
aggressively promote the fact that they have global
reach over the nternet.
-'%
The Post Company is now just ahead of No. 17 Dennis /ublishing, which owns The Week and climbed two spots
from No. 19. Dennis, which also owns the lad titles Maxim and Stuff, saw its revenues climb to $341 million from
$316 in 2004, an increase of about 8%. Dennis was helped in particular by the explosive growth of The Week,
which saw another good 2005 as its audited circulation (see Audience), ad revenues and subscriber revenue (see
Economics) grew. The company has no set target audience number for The Week, according to the magazine's
editor, but sees it growing fairly steadily for the next few years. That could push Dennis even higher in the size
rankings.
6
Tuc(er'an %e!ia /ro"erties, owner of U.S. News and World Report, made no moves of note, but saw its
revenues increase to $246 million from $236 million in 2004, an increase of 4.2%.
7
<nline an! the )uture
Other than Time, which is owned by Time Warner, none of the news magazines we examine are owned by
companies that fall within the 10 largest media companies in the U.S. Looking at revenue derived only from
magazines and not from other properties, only Time and the New Yorker, owned by Advance, are in the 10 largest
magazine companies and therefore part of larger corporate Web strategies.
Those two companies, however, are taking different approaches the Web.
n 2006 Advance launched a Web portal, Brides.com, that combines three of its print magazines into one site.
Advance is particularly eager to make its sites into Web destinations. Besides Brides.com, it is interested in the
Web portal model for food (with Epicurious.com), travel (with Concierge.com) and fashion (with Style.com). The
New Yorker Web site, however, exists outside that strategy. t is treated as a separate holding from the rest of the
company's titles online.
Time Warner, meanwhile, appears more interested in building its Web identity around its various titles Time,
People, Real Simple and Cooking Light rather than interest areas. All titles have their own Web identities. Even
n Style has its own home, with no obvious homepage links the title it was spun off from, People. Time also took a
step toward raising the profile of Time.com by renovating and relaunching the site. n the first issue of the new
Friday-released print version of the magazine, the new editor, Richard Stengel, told readers in a letter, The new
publication date reflects the way the nternet is affecting pretty much everything about the news business. Today
our print magazine and TME.com are complementary halves of the TME brand.
8
As Advance and Time Warner build their Web presences, it will be interesting to see whether one strategy
emerges as better than another, or if both succeed.
Elsewhere, news magazine owners are proceeding ad hoc, as they have in the past, with much depending on who
is overseeing the site or how the editor or publisher feels about investing in the Web. n a time of tight budgets and
staff cuts, such an approach means Web sites might more easily become an afterthought. At the same time, those
sites are freer of the restrictions that can grow from big corporate Web strategies restricted to a certain look or
certain features because of owners' demands. The sites can be focused around what their owners believe each
individual publication needs.
The pluses and minuses of such an ownership situation can be seen on Newsweek.com. The site does not look like
others owned by its corporate parent, the Washington Post Company, and that makes a certain amount of sense:
Newsweek is a different kind of publication from the Washington Post or Slate.
Newsweek.com has had some successes, winning some best of the Web Awards from the magazine industry site
minonline.com for its online coverage. And the site may soon be adding more features. Mark Whitaker, Editor of
Newsweek from 1998 until September 2006, has moved over to Washingtonpost.Newsweek nteractive, where he
will oversee new projects for the digital division.
But Newsweek.com is in some ways poorer for that independence. While washingtonpost.com, for instance, has
done much to add to the Post's franchise in recent years adding video and interactive features the site for
Newsweek without question thinner. t has no video reports (just segments featuring editors) and a lot more white
-''
space (see Digital). Meanwhile, Slate looks much more finished, with several podcasts and a lot of new material
daily.
What will the Post Company do with the sites? That decision may well be part of Whitaker's mission. The company
is beginning to cross-promote them a step further than last year but Newsweek.com is still tethered tightly to
msnbc.com.
The Week has seen exceptional audience growth, but its Web presence has so far been something of an
afterthought. That may be starting to change. n 2007 The Week plans to do a daily version online of what it does
every week in print, a daily summary of accounts from other outlets. But the magazine's owner, Dennis Publishing,
has done little with its other Web sites thus far beyond offering and encyclopedic backlog of photos of the women it
has featured in its pages some of which it seems to mark as Web-only.
Proof that one doesn't need a big owner to have Web focus and strategy comes from The Economist. While the
Economist Group is clearly pursuing a print growth strategy, the Web site, economist.com, is not an afterthought.
There is a wealth of free statistical data, notably including country profiles from the magazine's ntelligence Unit
that look at various nations' economic data, political structures and histories as well as forecasts of where they are
headed. And last fall the site added new features including daily stories and updates, an economics blog where
readers write, and more podcasts, including a five-minute summary of that week's print Economist.
)ootnotes
1. Top 25 Magazine Companies, 2005, on AdAge.com. compared to data from previous year's reports
2. Time Warner sold its book division in early 2006. But that figure is likely to drop again next year. Time Warner
announced in September 2006 that it was taking bids for a group of 18 magazines including Popular Science and
Outdoor Life.
3. Top 25 Magazine Companies, 2005, on AdAge.com. compared to data from previous year's reports
4. bid
5. bid
6. bid
-. bid
%. A Changing Time, Letter to readers from Richard Stengel Jan. 6, 2007
*e$s Invest'ent
The magazine industry's financial woes and the effect they've had on staffing are hardly breaking news. The end of
2005 and the beginning of 2006 were marked by staff cuts at well-known titles like U.S. News & World Report,
Business Week and Time (see 2006 Report).
The latter months of 2006 had none of the big staff-cut announcements from a year earlier, but smaller hits kept on
coming, as when Business Week cut another dozen positions.
1
With the arrival of 2007, however, came a bigger blow. On January 18, Time nc. announced it was going to cut 289
people from the staff of its top magazines 172 from the editorial side and 117 from business side.
2
The cuts announced were to hit Time magazine particularly hard. t was to lose about 50 people in all, a mix of
%00
editorial and business jobs. t would close its bureaus in Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta and cut four
correspondents from its Washington bureau. (The magazine said it would keep three laptop correspondents in L.A.
who would work directly with editors in New York.) The latest cuts added to Time nc.'s two rounds of reductions at
the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006.
3
Other notable Time nc. properties were to be hit as well Sports llustrated was to lose 30 staff members and
People 37 editorial employees but the cuts at Time had a special significance, coinciding with the magazine's
attempt to redefine itself.
4
According to a company statement, the cuts, made as part of the new multi-platform publisher, are focused on
increasing efficiencies and allowing for closer collaboration between our digital and print businesses.
5
What do the cuts mean about the direction of the new Time? t will almost certainly rely less on its own reporting,
since it has fewer people in the field. And the closing of bureaus in Chicago and Atlanta (often viewed as the
capitals of the Midwest and South) probably means regional coverage will take a hit. Correspondents in such
regional bureaus usually exist to be a magazine's eyes and ears there. One also wonders if the magazine's voice
will grow more coastal as New York and Washington, always a big part of its coverage, hold a larger percentage of
its staff.
Tallying up the staff boxes at Time and Newsweek, as we do annually in this report, it's clear that even the 12
months before the latest cuts were hard. Staffing and bureaus for both magazines were at new lows since we
began keeping track of them. Both witnessed the steepest one-year declines in staff on record.
There is little question that cuts in staff and bureaus have an impact on a news organization's ability to gather,
understand and analyze the news. They also make it hard to break news to do enterprise.
The cuts may mean the two magazines titles will focus more on recapping the news and then interpreting it. The
Week, which has growing circulation and ad revenues, puts out a weekly publication effectively without reporters. t
employs a group of editors who scrutinize the week's news and consolidate coverage from various outlets into a
single account that tries to not only say what happened but to give a favor of how different outlets covered
developments.
That kind of approach at Time and Newsweek, of course, would involve dramatic alterations in format and mission.
Time says it is going to alter its content, and in its print form switch to being less of a breaking-news vehicle and
more of a reflective and analytical one. But the magazine has also announced it is going to rely on its Web Site more
for providing breaking news.
Such a move, unless it simply involved running wire copy or repurposing stories from other parts of the
Time/Warner empire (like CNN.com), might easily require a bigger staff, not a smaller one. (And though it is early
and changes are still under way at Time, the Time.com part of the magazine's staff box actually shrank in 2006 to 7
people from 13 in 2005.)
6
The proposed changes mean Time's staff box in particular bears watching in the next few years. One question,
particularly after the most recent round of cuts, is whether the proposed redefinition of mission at Time is an
elegant way of dressing up cost-cutting.
Staffing at Ti'e an! *e$s$ee(
An examination as of October suggests that 2006 was a tight year in the newsrooms of Time and Newsweek.
According to the totals offered by the magazines' own staff figures, Time had a head count of about 226.
Newsweek was at about 165.
7
*e$s %agaIine Staff SiIe <ver Ti'e
Time and Newsweek select years 1983 - 2006
%01
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism from magazine staff boxes
Design Your Own Chart
Those numbers equal
staffing drops between
2005 and 2006 of
roughly 38 people at
Time and 20 at
Newsweek, or 14% and
11% respectively.
Those drops, which
came long before the
January cuts, are
steep. For comparison,
consider the years from
1983 to 1993., n that
10-year period
Newsweek reduced
staff by a total of 77 and
Time by only 18. As of
October 2006,
Newsweek's staff was
less than half what it
was in 1983.
8
On what positions did
the axe fall? t is
always difficult to tell
precisely with a
magazine staff box.
Titles are not always
what they seem
reporters, for
example, are often
actually researchers.
But tallying up the
numbers in the Time
box, some figures
stand out. The number
of reporters (writer-
reporters, senior
reporters and regular
reporters) dropped to
26 from 29. And as
we've noted, the
number of people
working only for
Time.com fell to 7
from 13.
9
Newsweek's cuts
included four jobs in its
art department
photographers and
layout people from
35 people from 39;
among senior editors,
reduced by three; and
editorial assistants,
reduced by four.
10
0orres"on!ents an! Bureaus
Both Time and Newsweek cut the number of their bureaus
in 2006 along with the number of people working in them.
Again it is unclear whether those moves were part of larger
efforts to change their missions or simply ways to save
money. Whatever the reason, the net impact was few
reporters on the ground.
Time's bureaus dropped to 20 in 2006 from 25 at the end of
2005 and, of course, will drop even more next year. The
magazine closed its offices in slamabad, Pakistan; Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia; Seoul, and Toronto. Time also closed its
New York bureau, though the effect of that closing is
probably relatively small since the magazine's
headquarters are in New York.
11
Newsweek cut three bureaus, going from 20 at the
end of 2005 to 17 in 2006. ts bureau casualties
abroad included offices in Brussels, the home of the
European Union, and Cape Town. Within the United
States, the magazine also combined its Chicago and
Detroit bureaus into a Midwest bureau, though it's not
clear exactly what the meaning of the move is; the staff
box continued to show a reporter in each city.
12
*e$s %agaIine Bureaus <ver Ti'e
%02
Time and Newsweek select years 1983 - 2006
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism from magazine staff boxes
Design Your Own Chart
And those cuts weren't just a reshuffling of personnel pulling back reporters from their far-flung perches and
placing them closer to home. They resulted in less overall staff. Time reduced its bureau correspondent staff to 48
from 52 the previous year. Newsweek's bureau staff was cut to 42 from 49 in 2005.
13
*u'ber of 0orres"on!ents in Bureaus <ver Ti'e
Time and Newsweek select years 1983 - 2006
65-
7 204
O<<-
)8
u
,S 304
45-40-
35-
llfah
1993
II
2005
|~[ Time
n Newsweek
Year
%03
Design Your Own Chart
1983
2003 2004
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism from magazine staff boxes
Such reductions are important because they go to one of the principle strengths of the weeklies, a big, spread-out
newsgathering operation. The bureaus, and the correspondents who staff them, give the magazines listening posts
that let them offer comprehensive coverage of the world. When news broke in a remote location, the weeklies
would have reporters nearby who had been paying attention to the news form the region and had a feel for the
scene. As the outposts and their staffing are reduced, those abilities diminish.
Considering the steady stream of cuts in bureaus and bureau staffing, the question is whether what remains will be
enough to cover a complicated world where news from distant outposts has taken on an increasing importance.
0ontributors
Newsweek's list of Contributing Editors changed little in the past year, declining to 17 names from 18 the year
before. The changes in Time's Contributors list were bigger in terms of size the list grew to 31 from 24 and
in type.
14
*u'ber of 0ontributors in Staff Bo&es <ver Ti'e
Time and Newsweek select years 1983 - 2006
, ,%%
1983 1993 2003 2004 2005
Year
[J Time
| | Newsweek
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Project for Excellence in Journalism from magazine staff boxes
%04
personalities largely known in journalism for their work at other outlets Michael Kinsley, for example, or the New
Republic's editor, Peter Beinart, or CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta. But Time's list in 2006 was notable for the nature of
the additions, mostly staff members cut from the other places in the staff box. Some of the new contributor
additions: former Senior Foreign Correspondent Johanna McGeary, former Jerusalem Bureau Chief Matt Rees and
former Senior Writers Daniel Kadlec and Michelle Orecklin.
That has long been more of the approach of Newsweek, which has several people on its Contributing Editors list
who were once full staff members, including Eleanor Clift and Ken Woodward.
That use of the contributors lists may continue to grow as the staffs of the weeklies are cut. Often moves into the
contributors list are part of the layoff negotiation that goes on between management and staff. Moving personnel
from staff to contributor leaves the titles more flexible. t still gives the magazines access to the people they once
had without paying them benefits or big salaries. t is a likely way of the future as the publications face tight
economic times.
Su''ary
Staff reductions seem to go beyond a trend for the big weeklies. f January's cuts at Time are any indication, such
reductions have become a way of life in the past few years and seem likely to remain one in the immediate future.
The magazine's staff boxes grew fat in the good economic years as they moved more and more resources and
operations inside their headquarters. But increasingly in their desire to be nimble and cut costs they seem to be
adopting a larger trend in American industry as a whole outsourcing.
Bureau offices are being closed and staffs trimmed as the ability to track news online grows. That doesn't,
however, mean foreign coverage is going to become something done from a computer terminal or strictly by
personnel who parachute into hot news areas. Stringers, who have always been put to use by the news weeklies
when news breaks, are likely to get more work, and former staff people will be called upon in a fee-for-service way
to offer expertise.
Where does all that leave the weeklies in the future where staffing is concerned? Leaner and meaner, but
ultimately with a product that is less under their control. Smaller bureau staffs and fewer foreign offices mean
scoops will inevitably be less common. But that may fit with the weeklies' new role in the media landscape,
particularly with Time's new approach to coverage, which may be more in line with that of The Economist: part
week in review, part opinionated analysis. The one thing that isn't clear is what it will mean to the Web operations of
those publications, which increasingly will be the platform charged with breaking news.
Footnotes
1.Talking Biz News blog, Sept. 29, 2006. http://weblogs.jomc.unc.edu/talkingbiznews/?m=200609
2.Time nc. Cutting Almost 300 Magazine Jobs to Focus More on Web Sites New York Times, Katharin Seelye,
January 19, 2007
3.bid
4.bid
5. Time nc. said to slash nearly 300 jobs, Reuters, Jan. 18, 2007
6.Time staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
-.Staff boxes, Time, October 9, 2006, and Newsweek, October 23, 2006
%.Staff boxes, Time, October 9, 2006, and Newsweek, October 23, 2006 compared to previous years' data
%05
9. Time staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
10.Newsweek staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
11.Time staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
12.Newsweek staff boxes 2006 vs. 2005
13.Staff boxes, Time, October 9, 2006, and Newsweek, October 23, 2006
14.bid
Digital
News magazines have had a difficult time figuring how they fit into the world of the digital media. Their long lead
times and more reflective style of writing don't jibe well with the Web's continuous nature. And on the whole
magazines have lagged behind other media in integrating the Web into their larger plans.
Some events in 2006 suggest that now may be changing, at least at some publications.
Several magazines increased their daily online output, began creating content specifically for the Web, and gave
users more multi-media features.
The changes are also reflected in online finances. Ad spending on the e-media side of magazines was expected
to grow by more than 34% in 2006 to over $400 million. That's an impressive jump, but it still makes up only 1.7%
of total ad spending on consumer magazines.
1
And then there was Time, the news genre leader, and its stated goal to begin to count audience as a combination
of print and Web together. The magazine announced it would be relying on its Web site to handle breaking news. t
instituted a major Web redesign that de-emphasized the print publication. t put its top editor in charge of the
magazine and its Web site as well uniting the two sides of editorial. (And all of that followed a 2005
announcement by U.S. News that it would increasingly be transitioning itself to the Web.)
The question is what those moves will amount to. Some observers cite them as positive and necessary by a
medium slow to the party. Yet other critics believe the talk may just be a way to dress up cuts in staff, and recent
reductions may lend credence to that thinking.
But there's also little question the publications hope to generate more clicks and dollars from the Web. The
success of Time's plans to calculate its ad base on readership (ultimately including Web readership) may dictate
how the rest of the field approaches the challenge.
To assess how far news magazines have traveled on the Web entering 2007, PEJ examined some of the top
newsweekly sites and did a site-by-site accounting of the features and advertising on three: time.com,
economist.com and theweekmagazine.com. They were part of a larger inventory of 38 different news sites on
various types from across the Web. (See Digital 5ournalis' cha"ter for the full analysis along with an interactive
tool to help citizens evaluate their favorite news sites and a full description of the methodology.)
We measured sites using six different criteria: The custo'iIation options the sites offered, their use of 'ulti4
'e!ia, the possibilities they offered for interactivity, the bran!ing of the content (that is how much was from the
outlets as opposed to outside sources), the !e"th of information available and how the site was doing
econo'ically in terms of drawing advertising. On each of these measures each site was placed into one of four
categories ranging from a top group that offered a lot to the last group which offered the least amount.
%06
The three sites were widely different in most regards how they handled podcasts, if they had them at all,
whether they charged for content and where they got that content from. n short, there is no dominant approach to
news-magazine Web sites. And that may be the case indefinitely if those three titles are any indication, since they
seem to be differentiating themselves increasingly in their print content. But as of now these sites, sometimes
going in a few directions at once, are serving as test kitchens for their parent titles.
Ti'e =$$$.ti'e.co'>
At the start of 2007, Time revamped and relaunched its Web site. t added new features, limited its color palette
and cleaned up a site that was fairly cluttered. The new site is more organized and simpler without being sparse. t
looks and feels more like the online home of a new Web outlet than it did before and less an online parking space
for the magazine.
Still, some of what we found on the site in October still held true in January. For instance, the first thing a visitor is
likely to notice is that Time is not alone here. Signs of its partnership with CNN another news outlet owned by
Time/Warner appear in the header. But there is more brand differentiation now than before. n the earlier
incarnation, the site offered The Latest Headlines from CNN. That has been replaced by Latest Headlines,
which lists 10 news items from a variety of sources, CNN among them.
The new Time.com is also an environment more distinct than before from the print magazine. The image of the
current week's magazine cover, for instance, is pushed further down on the page, rather than appearing in the top
right hand corner.
One thing the old and new sites have very much in common, however, is that everything here is still free.
Visually, the new Time.com uses a cleaner three-column format as opposed to the four-column approach it used to
have. And while the old site had pictures scattered all over it, the new one features only a changing slide-show
picture, with an ad on the right side and a row of three photos in the section below. The layout is modular.
The old cluttered Time.com was not without its advantages. t was one of the more custo'iIable Web sites,
finishing in the top tier in part because it offered several different RSS feeds, podcasts and a mobile version of
itself. t also finished in the top tier for bran!ing, using human editors to make decisions about layout (rather than
computer programs) and using bylines on staff copy. The site also relied heavily on its staff for lead stories more
than 75% of its lead pieces carried staff bylines.
t scored lower, in the third tier, in !e"th. ts score was hurt by offering fewer updates than other sites (something
true of most magazine sites) and not using embedded links to take readers further into a subject
Time put even less emphasis on 'ulti 'e!ia (it finished in the bottom tier). This is a text based Web site. t also
earned the lowest marks for user "artici"ation. t offered users little in the way of communicating or reacting, not
even the opportunity to send emails to authors.
Time also does not have a significant number of revenue strea's on the site at this point. t did not have many ads
eight and it did not charge for any content.
The new Time.com seems to place less emphasis on allowing users to customize it it certainly highlights
customization lessand is more focused on presenting users with a clean, uncluttered first view of the page. t still
has multiple RSS feeds and podcasts, and a link to get a mobile version of the site, but those links are at the
bottom.
On the other hand, blogs have multiplied. Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish is still here (though Sullivan announced that
his blog was moving to Atlantic.com), and it has been augmented with blogs about Washington (Swampland), The
Middle East and entertainment (Tuned n). The site also added a column called The Ag, which stands for
aggregator, which talks about what's news in other media.
nterestingly, the redesign actually left the site with fewer ads. There were a total of four in September, placing it in
%0-
the bottom 10 of the sites we looked at. But there were only two in January and they were coordinated for the same
product Bentley College. That approach, also taken by Economist.com, makes the ads feel more like an
integrated part of the page and less noisy.
The strength of Time.com is its willingness to reach beyond its own pages for content. There is a lot here. The 10
stories in the Latest Headlines box are usually wire copy, but they do at least offer users a link to major breaking
news. And such fare as Andrew Sullivan's blog not only brings more outside content to the page, its teaser text can
definitely bring a different flavor, as it did on December 9, 2006: f the Democrats have the balls to restore our
constitutional order may have to stop being an independent for awhile. Not exactly journalism in the tradition of
Henry Luce.
Perhaps most interesting, the new Time.com does not make a point of offering content from the magazine. The
daily stories from Time's staff, on the page's top left, are often shorter than magazine stories and feature either a
different tone or some exclusive tidbit, and Time.com clearly differentiates between them and the stories on the rest
of the site. And articles from the actual magazine are hidden down the page under the image of that week's cover.
Users have to click the image to get to those pieces.
t all amounts to a step toward a Web environment that is more than the magazine, with plenty of short items and
Web-only content. That is what Time promised in the summer of 2006 when it said it was going to turn to the Web
more and more, particularly on breaking news.
The -cono'ist =$$$.econo'ist.co'>
The brand. The brand. The brand. f there is one thing that Economist.com accomplishes, it is clearly and
successfully pushing the Economist brand online. Lest anyone wonder, the site is anchored in the top left corner by
the signature white lettering in a red box in this case spelling Economist.com with a picture of the current
magazine's cover prominently beneath.
Like the magazine, the site is clean, well-organized and text-heavy. t is also, like its print sibling not heavy with
pictures or graphics (there were six on a representative homepage, and four of them were quite small). Even the
site's ads, (often for petroleum companies or large blue-chip corporations) are designed without a lot of colors or
jumpy graphics.
2
There is a lot of free content here, but most of the stories from the print edition are accessible only to subscribers
those who get the magazine delivered or pay a fee to access premium online content.
At the time we did an accounting of Economist.com it was in the second tier in terms of custo'iIation, receiving
points for having a multiple-component search and several RSS feeds. t was also in the second tier on 'ulti4
'e!ia, due to the photos on the page several and podcast options.
ts weakest scores came in interactivity and !e"th, where it was in the bottom tier. A user-based blog (one where
the Web editor picks a topic of the day and users are invited to sound off on it) was essentially the only way for
users to participate on the site, hurting its interactivity score. And the site's twice daily updating as a magazine
site it seems less interested in being up-to-the-minute cost it points in out depth raking.
The site was in the top tier for the number of revenue streams it tapped. t was boosted by a significant number of
advertising combined with the content available for a fee helped its economic score.
But it was brand that stood out. The content here all comes from the staff of the magazine. This is not a place to go
to keep up with what's on the wire. Nor is there content from other publications in The Economist Group, which
includes Roll Call and European Voice.
Nonetheless, Economist.com does keep a steady flow of content coming by magazine standards. The top story is
new every day, as are the items in Today's Views which includes a staff column and a Correspondents Diary
(both unbylined) and Debate, a blog devoted to an interesting topic elsewhere on the Web. That is the closest
economist.com gets to outside sources for news. The online pieces are short in most cases, it appears, a bit
%0%
shorter than the tightly written pieces that appear in the magazine but they attempt the same kind of news
blended with analysis for which the magazine is known.
One of the best features may be the staggering amount of data accessible here. Beyond the news and analysis
pieces there are entire separate sections like the site's Cities Guide, with information about happenings in 27 cities
around the world, from Atlanta to Zurich. And there are the country briefings, which look at economic and political
news from countries around the world. They include recent stories from the magazine on each country and an
economic forecast, a fact sheet and information on the political structure of each.
For The Economist, which prides itself on giving readers data and raw facts along with its analysis, it is yet another
way to extend the brand.
The Wee( =$$$.the$ee('agaIine.co'>
The online home for The Week, www.theweekmagazine.com, can best be described as exactly that a place for
the online versions of the content that appears in the print title. t is a sparse environment, and appears by and
large to be an afterthought.
ts narrow, three-column format is evocative of a magazine page and fills only about half the screen. Only the wider
middle column holds real content, which is labeled n the Magazine. and features a large photo. The narrow left
column is saved for navigation. The current week's cover image is displayed prominently in the narrow right-hand
column (it links to a page where users can subscribe to the print version) and is followed down the page by ads.
Users coming to the site are greeted by only three images and three story links on their first screen.
All told, there are 24 links directly to stories on the page, an extremely low number among the sites we examined.
There is no place for breaking news and no attempt at posting daily staff-written content.
n fairness, The Week's format, which involves giving a weekly summary of news accounts from around the nation
and world, may not really be suited to the Web. First, publishing more often online goes against The Week's raison
d'etre: the premise that people are overloaded with information and need a simple, short synopsis of events that
they can carry with them. Second, if one wants a quick look at what's going on in the world from several sources
while online, online aggregators already offer many such services.
But that limited approach is ending. The magazine has announced it will soon launch a new Web site that will do on
a daily basis what the title does every week condense news from around the nation and world.
Looking at the rankings in our site inventory, The Week was not a big winner in much of anything. t scored well in
one category, bran!ing, where it was in the top tier because editors choose what content goes on the page and all
of it is generated in-house though it must be noted the content consists of summarize stories from other outlets.
n all other categories, the site was in the bottom tier. There were, in essence, no opportunities for custo'iIation.
3
The page's only 'ulti4'e!ia only components were the photos it ran. There were none of the "artici"ation
options (user blogs, author email addresses, live chats) we looked for on the site. The site was not updated during
the day (in fact only once a week, at the time of our inventory) which hurt its !e"th score. And the site had few ads
only six and no fee content which placed it near the bottom in revenue strea's.
While many people look at The Week as the print version of a Web aggregator, its Web presence pays little or no
heed to the capabilities of the nternet or the on-line world's 24-hour news cycle. t is the new-media home of a very
old-media approach.
The <thers1
e!s!ee6 9 Like Time.com, its well-known competitor, Newsweek.com shares its Web space with another news
organization MSNBC and like Time the site gives its partner high billing. Alongside the red Daily Edition
Newsweek banner running over the page sits a smaller, blue MSNBC box on the left. The site itself is clean,
%0'
dominated by a white background and black text with red highlights, which helps make its four-column format seem
less crowded.
There is a link for users to get a mobile version of the site, multiple RSS feeds and a podcast of Newsweek on Air,
the radio show long produced by the magazine. And there are two ads that, as on Time.com, are for the same
product.
But unlike Time.com's variety, there is only Newsweek content here, and the magazine seems to be churning it out
at a pretty good clip. The top story, which sits on the upper left of the page with a large photo, is generally a Web-
only piece written for that day. And while there is some material from the actual magazine here, most of the pieces
are written specially for the Web and marked with Web only on the top. The site also does the magazine's well-
known up-and-down-arrow Conventional Wisdom watch feature every day, abbreviated here as The Daily CW.
One possibly surprising thing about the site is how blogs, a favorite Web addition lately, are hidden well down the
page and subtly displayed. nstead, the magazine's current cover is emphasized, as are a lot of offers to subscribe
running up and down the site. Over all, the site looks and feels like something of a bridge between the online and
print world.
,(#( e!s : .orld Report 9 The word that comes to mind when one looks at site for U.S. News is sparse. Unlike
the sites of Time and Newsweek, it has no pronounced online affiliation with another news organization and,
perhaps for that reason, appears somewhat thin. Visually, the left 2/5 of the screen is empty and the only daily
updated material sits in a box on the right side at the top of the page.
While the site offers a mobile version, its RSS feed is weekly, and there are no podcasts. There is one ad on the
page along with many promotional messages to entice users to subscribe.
Of the three big news weeklies, U.S. News in some ways had the most to gain from a move to the Web. ts news-
you-can-use franchise translates well to the online world, where data is storable and sortable. And on
USNews.com the many special issues and lists that the magazine creates Best Colleges, Best Graduate
Schools, Beat Health Plans, etc. are given special treatment on the upper left of the screen, where most sites
put their navigational elements. There is limited access to these features, but to get any of them users have to Go
Premium for $14.95.
The site's daily content comes in the form of Today's Briefing on the page's top, which features a daily Campus
News Roundup (updated through the day) and the Political Bulletin (posted every morning). Brevity is the thing in
both of those areas, with items of a paragraph of two. There is also a Day in Photos link here with pictures from
around the country and world. Far down the page is Latest AP Headlines.
f this is the magazine's attempt to move itself online, it would appear that in the long term U.S. News will be less
about magazine pieces or even heavy reporting and more about quick hits and news you can use.
)ootnotes
1. Veronis Suhler Stevenson Communications ndustry Forecast, Consumer Magazines, p. 556
2. The page falls into three columns with the left one designated for site navigation and the other two the same
size. The center column is topped with a large red box labeled top story. The far-right column is topped with
boxes for Today's views, three new daily features the site added in December.
3. The home page, www.theweekmagazine.com, was not customizable. t offered no options for a mobile version
of the magazine and no RSS feed.
/ublic Attitu!es
%10
As with many other media, the evidence suggests that news magazines have seen their credibility with the public
erode in recent years. News magazines have long sat below television both cable and network in public
believability. n 2006, there was little evidence that much had changed.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press measures believeability on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being
the highest. And in its 2006 Biennial Media Consumption survey those giving Time and U.S. News & World Report
the highest rating fell slightly. For Newsweek the rating climbed slightly, but the prevailing trend is clearly
downward.
1
*e$s %agaIine Believability <ver Ti'e
1999 vs. 2005
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Public More Critical of the Press, but Goodwill Persists June 26, 2005. Question 3.
What's more, the ratings for all three magazines measured continued to lag behind broadcast media.
2
Believability of +arious *e$s <utlets
%11
Percent of people who say they can believe most or all of what each outlet reports
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center of the People and the Press
t's interesting that it isn't necessarily the magazine style of writing that is holding the Big Three back, but perhaps
the fact that they are printed on paper. 60 Minutes, a broadcast magazine, actually scores higher on believability
than the news divisions as a whole. And it should be noted the three news weeklies cited in the survey on average
have the highest believability numbers of any print publication measured, other than the Wall Street Journal and
the person's local newspaper and that includes the New York Times, USA Today and the Associated Press.
3
Believability of +arious /rint <utlets
1999 vs. 2005
%12
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Public More Critical of the Press, but Goodwill Persists June 26, 2005. Question 3.
That finding opens the door to several interpretations. s there a point to the argument that people tend to distrust
the idea of objective media so much that they give more weight to outlets that offer more interpretation, or what
some might even consider bias outlets that write with a slant or a take as the weeklies like to call it? s it that
outlets that come out less frequently are thought to have spent more time on each item, and their news is therefore
more trustworthy?
As the magazines continue to talk about moving more of their operations to the Web, those two theories should get
something of a test.
f people are rewarding magazines for coming out less often, the migration to the Web theoretically could hurt the
magazine brands. One of the web's strengths, news on demand, is less about taking time to check facts and more
about immediacy. Other strengths of the Web searchable data bases and access to original materials are
also not the province of news weeklies, which synthesize material into more digestible form. Once the magazines
enter that game, if they truly try to compete and break news, will there be less separating them from other Web
outlets in the public's mind?
Those challenges presented by the Web may explain why magazines like the New Yorker are thriving in print. The
long-form narratives of the New Yorker in a stapled and small magazine format suit themselves more to the
portability of print than to the Web. A long New Yorker piece is not digested quickly on a PDA or read at the
computer. We take the time to read it on a train, or in an armchair.
f Time, Newsweek and U.S. News are to thrive on the Web, does the mission change? Does the nature of their
narrative change? Does the notion of being a weekly publication in itself disappear over time?
What ea!ers Cno$
For the vast majority of readers, news magazines are an extra source of news. Their subscribers are generally
thought to be more interested in news than average news consumers. n a world where news and information are
available in abundance, they pay to get an additional source of news delivered to their homes. What does their
desire for more news say about their news knowledge? Perhaps not as much as one might think. News magazine
readers are not particularly good students of the news. They know more than some news consumers and less than
others.
%13
n the 2006 Pew Biennial Media Survey, 52% of respondents who said they had read a magazine yesterday and
could correctly identify the Secretary of State. That was a lower score than respondents who said they had read a
newspaper yesterday, 55%, or read news online yesterday, 58%. But the magazine readers scored higher than
people who said they had watched TV news (47%) or listened to news on the radio the previous day (49%).
4
On a question involving foreign affairs can you name the current president of Russia? the findings for people
who had used various media yesterday were similar. Roughly 43% of magazine readers knew Vladimir Putin's
name. That was lower than newspaper readers and nternet users, of whom 47% and 50%, respectively, got the
answer right. But magazine readers did better than TV news viewers (37%) and radio news listeners (41%).
5
News magazine readers scored lower than newspapers readers, nternet users and radio listeners on the question
of which party was in control of the House of Representatives (before November's elections). Some 71% of news
magazine readers answered the question correctly, compared to 76% for newspapers readers, 73% for radio
listeners and 80% for nternet users.
6
Which /arty is in 0ontrol of the House of e"resentativesJ
Percent of 'regular' audiences answering question correctly
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
The meaning of those numbers is hard to know for certain. There is overlap in the data people use many media
every day but the numbers do suggest that the news magazine audience is not as elite as many believe. t's
interesting, for instance, that radio listeners, who use the lowest-cost media listed here no subscription cost, free
content and inexpensive receivers score higher than magazine readers on at least one of the questions.
t's also worth noting that news magazines as defined for this survey do not include the niche news titles we
discuss in this chapter The Economist, The Week and the New Yorker but rather the big news weeklies.
When we last looked at the question of audience knowledge, in our 2005 report, the audience of the big news
weeklies was broken out on its own and it was shown to rate higher than the audience knowledge of newspaper
readers on four questions on current events.
What's behind the change? t may be that that the audience changes this report has discussed for the past few
years declining readership at the big weeklies and growth of the niche news titles means that the niche
publications are cherry-picking more serious news audiences. t may be that the separation we're now seeing is
simply a matter of the questions that were asked this year. Or it may be a different reason altogether. Regardless,
%14
the finding bears watching.
)ootnotes
1. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Biennial Survey, Maturing nternet News Audience
Broader Than Deep: Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, pages 122-127
2. bid
3. bid
4. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Biennial Survey raw data, p. 936
5. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Biennial Survey raw data, p. 942
6. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Biennial Survey raw data, p. 930
<"inion Titles
Heading into 2007, the biggest issue for the opinion titles is the big political story from last November the switch
in the party control of Congress. The Democrats' winning of the House and Senate creates an interesting dynamic
not just in political power but, if history is any guide, also in the readership of the opinion journals.
As we have noted in this report in past years, the fortunes of such magazines tend to go up and down in an inverse
relationship to the fortunes of the political parties they favor. So the good times for the GOP in recent years helped
the readership of the left-leaning Nation grow to record levels, just as the first few years of the Clinton
Administration led to a big spike in readers for The National Review.
That pattern suggests that there will be some drop-off in readership in leftist publications as angry Democrats feel
some satisfaction, and an increase in right-leaning magazines as formerly content Republicans get their ire raised
and are eager to read critiques. And more center-left titles like The New Republic, often focused on policy
suggestions, could see a bump from Democrats looking for ideas on how to govern.
For 2007, though, the political landscape suggests a host of provisos for those truisms. The Democrats control
Congress, but President Bush is still ensconced in the White House. Many Republicans, meanwhile, while they
dislike the Democrats, are less than pleased with Bush, according to polls, and those mixed feelings may still make
them less likely to pick up a political journal. The increasingly unpopular war in raq could cause people to grow
more engaged in politics or push them away from it.
And, of course, the political backdrop of 2007 is likely to be the coming presidential race, which is wide open with no
obvious heir apparent in either party for the first time in decades. ntriguing candidates and/or internal party
squabbling could steer more readers to the opinion journals.
A look at the 2006 circulation figures for those magazines demonstrates the trend of complicated reverse party
trends of the group. The left-tilting Nation continued to grow slightly and lead the pack. The conservative National
Review lost some readers though it was not too far behind. Meanwhile, the New Republic, not really at either
ideological pole, was essentially flat, and far behind the other two.
1
There was also a big development with the New Republic just before the report was released. TNR was sold in
February to Winnipeg-based CanWest Global Communications, a Canadian newspaper publisher that had already
owned 30% of the magazine. mmediate terms of the deal were not available, but the company announced one big
change immediately. The 93-year-old weekly would begin to publish every other week, while almost doubling the
%15
number of pages. That follows a noticeable thinning of the magazine in recent years
t is important to point out that circulation isn't as critical a measure for those magazines as it is for others. The
opinion journals are ultimately as interested in the amount of political sway they hold in Washington and in who
their readers are as they are in the pure the bottom line. But circulation is not irrelevant. t indicates where
politically focused audiences on the right and left are going for ideas. Here's a look at where the magazines'
circulation stands today.
0irculation of Bea!ing <"inion %agaIines
1988-2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Audit Bureau of Circulation, annual audit reports and publisher's statements
The Nation,the stalwart voice of liberalism, continued its growth in 2006 albeit at a slower rate. As of December of
2006, it had a circulation of 186,528, just up from 184,181 the previous year an increase of 2,300, or just over
1%.
2
nterestingly, The Nation's circulation has been growing steadily since 1998. That was the year the Lewinsky
scandal hit the Clinton White House, and the mainstream coverage of Clinton grew more critical. n the elections up
to 2006 the Democrats remained unable to win back control of any of Washington's centers of authority. Will The
Nation's readers lose interest now that the Democrats are back in power?
There may be some reason to think so. Consider the jump the National Review saw leading up to the 1994 mid-
term elections. The conservative periodical went from 163,000 in 1992 (the year Bill Clinton was elected) to
269,000 in 1994. But after the GOP took control of Congress in that election, the Review's circulation dropped back
to 242,000 in 1995, then to 206,000 in 1996, then to 171,000 in 1997. By 1998 it was actually back to pre-1992
levels at 160,000.
One reason The Nation might be different is the change in the media environment since then. Not only is the
%16
political landscape considered to be more polarized now, but the Web in some ways feeds that polarization with
sites especially blogs devoted to particular points of view. The opinion journals know this and have taken
advantage of it, making their home pages the place to go for commentary.
Both The Nation and National Review have Web-only content to draw readers looking for a left or right view of the
news.
And National Review. the conservative movement's traditional conscience, saw its circulation drop in 2006,
perhaps feeling the pull of the President Bush's slumping poll numbers. The title's December 2006 circulation of
152,603 was down 8,000 from 2004's 160,896 or more than 5%.
3
The magazine's success is worth pondering. The rise may have had something to do with the start of Bush's
second term and interest among conservatives about where he would try to take the country. t could be that
disappointment or confusion over the war in raq, and the splintering of Bush's coalition, led conservatives to
search for more voices. Or it could be the open field and the battle for the party after he leaves office.
The obvious question now is whether the Republicans losses in the midterm elections of 2006, and the subsequent
usual calls for soul-searching, will translate into even more readers for the National Review. t too has parlayed its
Web site into a force in online political debate more so than The Nation which may also help explain the
magazine's ability to buck the larger political trend and add subscribers during a time when historical models
suggest it would not.
Meanwhile, the New Republic continues to plug along with about 60,000 in circulation. After a drop from roughly
86,000 in 2002 to 61,000 in 2003, the magazine has stayed relatively stable. t gained a few more readers between
December of 2005 and December of 2006, going from 61,055 to 61,628.
4
Looking at the magazine in recent years, even the occasional reader might notice the issues are getting thinner.
The 2006 issues averaged just over 37 pages each. Going back to 1998, the average was just over 45 pages.
That's a decline of 21% over that period.
5
While good economic data aren't available on the opinion titles, such a
thinning would suggest that the New Republic has hit some economic turbulence. And the loss of readers certainly
hasn't helped with advertisers.
New owner CanWest is aiming to make the magazine profitable again while publishing only every other week
and wants to redesign TNR's Web site. The first edition of the new New Republic comes out March 19, though the
impact of the buyout won't be known for months at least.
There is, however, some hope that TNR might gain some readers back in 2007. Now that the Democrats are in
control the House and Senate they have talked about moving to the center particularly on social and fiscal
issues to consolidate power. Many of the Democratic freshmen in Washington are moderates. f there really is a
more centrist Democratic voice coming out of Washington, the New Republic might benefit in a few ways. t may be
the place the politically interested go to get an idea of which direction the party in power is going on various issues
and it may be a place where Democratic politicians go to publish essays and op-eds. The next few years could give
an indication whether the magazine's falling fortunes have ideological or editorial roots.
)ootnotes
1.The Audit Bureau of Circulations does not collect data on The Weekly Standard.
2.Audit Bureau of Circulations Audit Report for The Nation compared to previous years' data
3.Audit Bureau of Circulations Publisher's Statement for National Review compared to previous years' data
4.Audit Bureau of Circulations Publisher's Statement for the New Republic compared to previous years' data
5.PEJ research
%1-
a!io
Intro
By the Project for Excellence in Journalism
n 2006 the transformation of radio into something broader audio accelerated.
The use of iPods, portable podcasting, satellite signals, digital HD radio, nternet streaming, and even phones as
music-listening devices all grew. There were further signs that the new technologies were beginning to have an
impact on traditional radio, from audience behavior and economics to transforming the ownership and strategy of
the industry and altering the projections for the future.
For now, the size of traditional radio's audience remains fairly stable. But the amount of time people spend with it is
beginning to ebb.
n the meantime, other, larger signals of change were unmistakable. The biggest of the year was the decision by
traditional radio's behemoth, Clear Channel, to transform itself into a private company and sell off its TV holdings
and well over 400 of its radio stations. Clear Channel's executives hinted that they no longer thought they could
manage their long-term survival if they had to focus on the short-term demands of Wall Street and public
ownership. s the move a harbinger of things to come, of a new era a move away from large, public multimedia
companies and toward private ownership?
While the older players in radio maneuvered, the growing array of alternative technologies was still sorting itself
out. Satellite radio, the seeming golden gadget a year earlier, continued to grow, but not as much as expected in
2006. And in February 2007 the two satellite companies announced plans to merge, though anti-trust laws may
pose a problem. The use of podcasting also swelled. More news sites and music distributors began putting
content on their Web sites to download on MP3 players, cell phones and PDAs (personal digital assistants, to give
the hand-held gizmos their full name). The PDA option is growing most. But it still remains to be seen how much
people will incorporate the idea of downloading programs for later listening into their lives.
And traditional radio's best option to compete with all this, HD Radio, took on more momentum during the last year.
But cost still remains a major roadblock. The only notion that seems clear is that the first major new
communication technology of the 20th century radio is changing rapidly and appears likely to survive the
early years of the21 st. The form or forms the medium will take, however, are still shifting.
Au!ience
Despite the avalanche of new listening options, nearly all Americans still listen to the standard AM/FM radio
now eight decades old at some point during the course of a week. According to 2005 data found in the most
recent Radio Today annual report (2006) issued by the radio ratings company, Arbitron 93.7% of people
age 12 years and older still listen to traditional radio each week.
1
That represents a drop of 1.6 percentage points
since 1998, a relatively small decline compared with other media facing expanded competition from new
technology. The one caveat is that the drop appeared to accelerate slightly in 2005.
%1%
a!io each
Percent of the population 12 and older, 1998 - 2005
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006
The weekly listenership of traditional radio has also remained fairly stable. n an average week in 2005, according
to the Arbitron data, people listened to the radio less than they did in 2002 by just under an hour. That takes the
amount of average weekly listening down to 19 hours, compared with 20 hours a decline of 5% in three
years.
2
a!io *e$s
f traditional radio's audience is fairly stable, what about the listenership of news content in particular? The
answer, given the complexities of measurement, is not a simple one.
For traditional radio, news remains a major draw. Arbitron each year measures what radio format listeners spend
the most time with. Before 2005, the latest year for which there are data, the news/talk/information category was
usually at the top of that list. t dropped in 2005 to the No. 2 spot, behind country music.
3
The reason for
news/talk/information's fall, however, is a change in the way Arbitron does its counting, not a precipitous fall in
audience. The news/talk/information format previously consolidated all news, all sports and talk personality
programming. The latest Arbitron report, released in 2006, created separate categories for each of them. n the
new measurement, 10.4% of listeners said they listened to the mixed format of news, talk and information radio
(compared to 10.6% the previous year), while 2.1% listened to all sports, 1.5% to all news and 1.9% to talk
personality.
When the excluded categories are added back in, the figure rises to 15.9%, which is unchanged from the previous
year. And as in the past, the format moves to the top of the list of radio formats. Country music, the second most
popular format, dropped slightly from the previous year's data, down to 12.5%, from 13.2% in 2004.
4
According to Arbitron data from the past six years, audience for news/talk/information radio has remained fairly
consistent for most age groups. But the most recent data do illustrate a few changes, most notably a growing
interest in news/talk/information among the elderly. Almost 20% more listeners between the ages of 55 and 64
tuned into news/talk/information programming in 2005 than in 2004. On the other hand, 25-to-34 and 35-to-44-
year-olds listened less in 2005 than they had in the previous year, making noticeable departures from a once
stable trajectory.
5
Those changes could be a reflection, however, of changing national demographics, particularly
%1'
with the large baby boomer generation entering retirement, and thus an era of increased leisure time that may be
spent with radio news.
Bisteners to *e$s4Tal(4Infor'ation Stations. by Age
1998-2005
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006 * 1998 data includes children's formats.
Those who tune in to news/talk/information are also more educated than listeners to other radio formats, except
sports radio. Over 43% of news/talk/info listeners are college graduates, compared with 48% of sports listeners,
15% of listeners to the popular country format and 27% of adult-contemporary listeners.
6
The audience for news/talk/information radio also skews Republican. That finding is new to Arbitron's annual
Radio Today report. n its 2006 report, the company asked survey respondents to identify their political party
affiliation. Of those who tuned into news/talk/information, 36% were Republicans, 27% Democrats and 26%
ndependents. The Arbitron report noted as general tendency that commercial talk radio appeals to a Republican
audience.
7
(See Talk Radio).
*e$ Au!io *e$s
f news continues to be such a big part of traditional commercial radio's appeal, does it hold the same sway in the
new audio formats?
That is harder to answer. For now, the data on newer audio formats satellite radio, nternet radio and podcasts
do not specify the type of content people tune in to. The total number of people and the time they spend
listening to news is expected to become measurable with Arbitron's Portable People Meter starting in 2007.
But a survey released by the Pew Center for the People and the Press does provide some insight into how many
people are using the new audio devices to access news content, and how frequently.
The data suggest that the devices are not being widely used for consumption of news, not yet anyway. Only 12%
8
of the nternet population has ever downloaded any kind of podcast on an MP3 player, and only 2%
9
has done it for
a ne!s podcast, according to Pew data.
%20
*e$s on %obile Devices
%obile *e$s
De'ogra"hics
% of %/7
<$ners
% of 0ell /hone
<$ners
% of /DA
<$ners
Total ;% 2% 8;.7%
Male 9.2 6.; 27.;
Female 2 :.7 9.6
Every day 2.8 2.2 6.:
A few times/week 2.6 8.7 7.;
Less often 7.2 2.: 6.7
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press' biennial consumption survey, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper
Readership, July 30, 2006
But of MP3/iPod owners (25.5% of the population), 8% say they download news podcasts to their MP3 players.
10
Though that is a small percentage, Pew survey data show that about a quarter of the news podcast downloaders
report doing so daily.
Watching or listening to news on a cell phone is about as popular as podcasts. Some 6% of adult cell phone
owners (who make up 74% of the population) say they receive news headlines or news reports on their cell
phones.
11
And a little over a third of them say that they do so daily.
BlackBerry and Palm Pilot users, however, are much more avid consumers of news on their portable devices. Of
the 12% of the population who own such a PDA device, nearly one in five (18.5%) say that they receive news
headlines or reports on it.
12
Just over half of them report doing so daily. t should be remembered, however, that
those people represent only 2.3% of the overall adult population. What's more, the Future of News study
conducted by Robert Papper for the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation showed that fewer than 5%
of the U.S. population had e%er consumed news on a small-screen device (mobile phone, PDA iPod or the like)
and that only about 10% said they had any interest in doing so.
13
Those numbers represent a small percentage of the total population of portable news consumers, but it's also true
that millions of Americans are receiving news in this manner. Pew data also show that those on-the-go news
consumers tend to be wealthier and more highly educated than average, which could soon make them a prime
target for marketers.
How big is the overall audience for those new audio technologies? t is worth examining them one technology at a
time.
Satellite a!io
One of the first major rivals to traditional radio satellite began to show some signs of difficulty in 2006,
ultimately leading to an announcement in February 2007 to merge.
After several years of explosive audience growth but heavy financial losses, the industry began the year with high
expectations. t projected not only to continue expanding its subscriber base, but also to begin turning a profit.
The high hopes weren't realized.
While subscriber bases for the two satellite radio systems XM and Sirius did grow, year-end figures fell far
below early estimates. 16 Throughout 2006, XM's forecast of its year-end subscription base declined. n March,
the company predicted a base of 9 million subscribers, but by the end of July, that estimate had fallen to between
7.7 million and 8.2 million.
14
%21
At the end of the year, XM reported its subscription base as 7.6 million. Always the leader in audience totals and
audience recognition, it remained so; Sirius reported its subscriber base at 6 million.
But in the last two years, Sirius had been closing the gap. XM grew 29% from the end of 2005 to the end of 2006,
adding 1.7 million subscribers. Sirius grew even more, 82%, adding 2.7 million subscribers.
15
The two companies' subscription totals added up to 13.6 million satellite subscribers. That is more than a third
higher than the 9 million reported at the end of 2005. Total audience reach for the satellite media, moreover, is
estimated to be higher still, since subscriptions represent entire households, but an exact figure is hard to pin
down.
16
For the moment, until the people meter system becomes more widespread, analysts must rely on the figures
reported by each company for the size of satellite radio's audience. Still, the platform is growing, while the
traditional radio audience is shrinking, though slowly.
Another measure of satellite radio's audience can be derived from survey data. According to the biennial media
consumption survey by the Pew Center for the People and the Press in the spring of 2006, 10.5% of adult
Americans said they had listened, at some time, to satellite radio.
17
There are also signs in the data, however, that satellite radio's growth may be approaching a ceiling. According to
an Arbitron survey, only 4% of non-subscribers to satellite radio said they were very likely to subscribe in the
next 12 months. An additional 14% of non-subscribers said they would be somewhat likely to subscribe.
18
One possible explanation for the slowdown in satellite radio growth is competing technologies, including MP3
players (such as iPods), nternet and HD radio, which all offer consumers breadth and diversity in their listening
options. And the big advantage that satellite radio has offered and seemed to cultivate most effectively high-
profile talk personality talent may have proven to be too expensive for successful competition with the portable
and customizable choices offered by other digital audio technologies. These will be key arguments that the
companies will use before the Federal Communications Commission and the anti-trust courts as they make their
bid to merge.
Internet a!io
One new technology that had been slow to gain momentum, nternet-based audio, began to emerge in 2006 as a
meaningful competitor.
nternet radio, as the name implies, is audio content offered online, usually in the form of live streaming. One of
the appeals of nternet radio is its potential for even greater breadth and depth of listening options. iTunes was an
early leader in providing such online listening. Among its many options, iTunes software offers users a wide
selection of radio stations to stream live through their computers.
Now, both news and music outlets have jumped on the audio nternet bandwagon. Broadcast radio stations are
increasingly putting their content online as audio clips and podcasts. And Web sites like Pandora and Yahoo
Music uniquely allow listeners to craft individual music stations that home in on the specific kind of music they
enjoy, while discovering new artists in the process. The customizability and choice of such Web sites distinguish
them from traditional radio and the other forms of new audio.
Those new nternet options seem to have helped fuel interest. After being somewhat stagnant in recent years,
according to Arbitron and Edison Media Research, weekly nternet radio audiences jumped 50% from January
2005 to January 2006.
19
That translates into 12% (up from 8% in 2005) of the American population over the age of
12 or 30 million people who reported listening to nternet radio in an average week, according to Arbitron.
What's more, Arbitron reports that the number rises to 21%, or 52 million people, when asked if they had listened to
nternet radio in the past month a 40% increase over the previous year.
20
Much of that growth can probably be explained by the big jump in broadband use, which allows for a much faster
connection and higher quality sound. According to the Pew nternet Project, broadband penetration in the home
%22
jumped 40% from March 2005 to March 2006, rising to 84 million homes, up from 60 million a year earlier. That
growth rate is twice that of the year before, and puts the total portion of adult Americans with broadband in the
home at 42%.
21
FCC numbers from a year earlier suggest that the number is lower.
22
But both agree that broadband
penetration is growing.
n addition to broadband connections, other factors can also explain the increased popularity of nternet radio.
Like its video counterpart particularly YouTube nternet audio offers consumers flexibility and a shot at
innovation of their own. People do not need expensive equipment or broadcast licenses to put their content in the
public domain. And traditional radio stations are increasingly offering their content online for listeners to hear at
times that are convenient to their schedules.
Another factor is that more radio stations are now streaming their broadcasts online. After big pushes by CBS and
Clear Channel, Tom Taylor, editor of nside Radio, estimates that about 33% of over-the-air radio stations are now
streaming. Radio was slow to get off the mark, but it's doing some catching up, he said. Most likely, in turn,
some proportion of that nternet radio listening involves people listening to traditional radio broadcasting over their
computers.
/o!casting
Along with the nternet, podcasts also saw a good deal of growth in 2006. The rise of MP3 players fueled much of
that. MP3 players are pocket-sized devices that enable people to download content from their computers and
take it anywhere they go. Music files transferred to computers from CD's have historically been popular for MP3
downloading. But now that nternet podcasts have gone from being a B-list player to an A-list player, the content
of MP3 downloading has diversified.
23
Podcasts originally were popular for giving people the ability to be their own DJ's and distribute their unique
content, similar to the way the nternet granted bloggers a public voice. While still a common practice, the pool of
available podcasts is increasingly being filled with content distributed from mainstream media outlets, in the form of
news segments and now, even television shows.
The particular strength of podcasts is portability listening wherever you are. But podcasts also embrace many
of the characteristics of other new audio flexibility, breadth of selection and digital-quality sound. Like nternet
radio, the array of listening choices is seemingly infinite.
The selection runs the gamut: homegrown music, citizen DJ's, iTunes playlists, pajama pontificators and daily news
coverage. From the Web sites of NPR and the New York Times, to Yahoo News, local and national television
news sites and user-generated content sites like digg.com, podcasts are an important component of news Web
sites. A good indicator of the universe of available podcasts is Podcast Alley, an online directory of podcasts. As of
December 2006, it catalogued over 27,000 different podcasts, up from the 1,000 it listed two
years previously.
24
Podcasts also may have a bigger upside in terms of growth than some other new audio. n November of 2006, the
Pew nternet Project reported that 12% of adult nternet users (those 18 and over) or approximately 17 million
people said they had at some time downloaded a podcast to listen to or view at a later time.
25
That was up from
7% just six months earlier an increase of over 70%.
26
But in a survey that included people aged 12 through 17, Arbitron, the radio audience rating service, found that
teenagers make up a large percentage of those who download podcasts. Of Americans who said they had
listened to an audio podcast, one in five was between the ages of 12 and 17. That age cohort contributes largely to
the April 2006 Arbitron finding that 11% of the entire population (including non-nternet users) 12 and older or 27
million Americans reported having listened to podcasts.
27
The rapid growth of podcasting and the high use among teenagers certainly suggest that the podcasting universe
is likely to continue growing. The Diffusion Group, a research and consulting firm specializing in new media,
predicted that by 2010, the number of American podcast users would swell to 66 million, more than doubling in
four years.
28
%23
Another factor helping the growth of podcasting is the continued spread of MP3 players necessary to download
the material. Arbitron's 2006 report on digital radio revealed that approximately 25% of Americans over the age of
12 owned such a portable digital music player, up 56% from January 2005 to January 2006.
29
Of those digital
devices, 11% were iPods (up 83% from the previous year).
And the industry expects MP3 sales to keep increasing as the technology of the devices improves. Microsoft
recently introduced its version of a souped-up MP3 player to compete with Apple's popular iPod, and the battle for
the ultimate portable audio/video device doesn't look like slowing anytime soon. As the devices attempt to invent
themselves as the new Walkman, it is reasonable to expect that podcasts will also hit the mainstream.
But if growth in the number of people who podcast seems likely, a bigger question may be how often they will do it.
According to Pew nternet data, only 1% of respondents claimed to download a podcast everyday(
30
(For more on podcasting, see also What is Podcasting? a PEJ commentary).
HD a!io
Many radio professionals believe that HD radio is traditional radio's strongest chance to compete with satellite and
nternet radio. HD radio is a digital version of the traditional AM/FM dial.
HD radio made a big push in 2006. According to the HD Digital Radio Web site, 1,001
31
stations were
broadcasting on a digital signal as of December 2006 about 7% of the total number of stations in the country.
32
The reason that HD radio is thought of as an answer to new digital competition is not only that it offers better
signal quality, but also that it allows stations to multicast, or take advantage of HD's split signal to broadcast
multiple stations. The number of stations broadcasting on what is known as the HD2 multicast channel was
around 700 at the end of 2006 according to the HD Digital Radio Web site, www.hdradio.com.
33



Though HD radio's penetration rate is low, experts think its future looks promising. Those numbers are already
moving faster than the long buildup and slow deployment of its digital television counterpart, HDTV.
There is also evidence that audiences are receptive. Arbitron's survey on digital radio platforms found that more
than a third of survey respondents were interested in the technology. That number rose to 4 out of 10 when
satellite radio subscribers were asked of satellite subscribers. Whether satellite subscribers would switch away
from satellite or simply augment their listening platforms is yet to be determined.
34
n addition the nternet and podcasts, HD technology offers one more way that traditional radio stations can
compete in the era of consumer control. (See Economics).
%obile a!io
Finally, if one can put radio content on an iPod, one can also download it onto other digital devices, including cell
phones and PDA's like BlackBerries and Palm Pilots.
n September of 2006, Clear Channel announced its plan to stream radio content to cell phones with service
provided by Cingular Wireless. The mobile radio program began streaming content out of New York's station
WHTZ-FM Z100, and includes live radio and news features, as well as on-demand podcasts. The service is called
Z100 Mobile, and requires a subscription fee of $2.99 a month. Subscribers to the service can also request songs
and locate the titles and artists of recently played songs via text messages on their cell phones. Clear Channel
reported in its September press release that it expected to expand the service to 100 stations by the end of 2007.
De'ogra"hics of V*e$ a!ioR
%24
For now, the new digital forms of audio are not only expanding the potential for listening beyond that of traditional
radio, they are also attracting a different audience. Some of these differences are to be expected, but others are
more surprising and subtle.
To begin with, contrary to popular conception, teenagers are not necessarily the most avid consumers of new
technology, at least not with new audio devices.
Young adults, for instance, those between age 18 and 34, are the most likely to listen to nternet radio. Nearly 1 in
5 does so at least once a week, compared with closer to 1 in 10 of 12-to-17-year-olds.
35
Teenagers, though, are more likely to listen to podcasts 21% of people under 18 report doing so but
listening to podcasts is equally as popular with 35-to-44-year-olds, followed closely by people 25 to 34, at 20%, and
45 to 54, at 17%.
36
The listening device that reigns supreme with youth is the MP3 player. A majority of U.S. teenagers (51%) now
report that they own an iPod or some other brand of portable digital music player, according to Arbitron.
37
Of the new audio formats, satellite radio attracts the oldest crowd, though it isn't really old at all: those between
35 and 44 are most likely to listen to satellite radio. Of those surveyed in that age group, 24% said they listened to
satellite radio, followed by 20% in the 25-to-34 age range and only 6% of those 18 to 24(
38
Wee(ly Use of Digital Au!io. by Age
2005
1281- 1%824 25834 35844 45854 55864
Age4#rou"
| ~| nternet |
Satellite [^
Podcasting [J
Own MP3
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Arbitron, The nfinite Dial: Radio's Digital Platform, April 13, 2006
%25
The new digital technologies also tend, at the moment, to skew toward the more affluent. Americans who make
less than $25,000 a year though they make up one-fifth of the population constitute less than one-tenth of
the audience for any of the new audio formats.
39
Those who make more than $100,000 a year 14% of the population over all make up over a quarter of those
who report listening to satellite radio.
40
Podcasting also skews toward the affluent, but not as heavily. Though 22% of people who listen to podcasts earn
more than $100,000, more than half of podcast downloaders (55%) earn between $25,000 and $75,000.
41
Wee(ly Use of Digital Au!io. by Inco'e
2005
Source: Arbitron, The nfinite Dial: Radio's Digital Platform, April 13, 2006
Design Your Own Chart
As in years past, males are also more likely to consume the new digital audio options, making up 58% of the
population who listen to radio online. Other new audio formats are more balanced between the sexes, though still
tilt toward the male side: satellite radio attracts an audience that is 53% male and 47% female, and podcasting
splits 52% male and 48% female.
42
The Pew Center for the People and the Press offers a view of the demographics of digital listeners that is different
from Arbitron's.
43
De'ogra"hics of Satellite a!io an! %/7 <$ners
2003
Satellite a!io %/7 <$ners
Total 10.5% 25.5%
%ale 12.9 29.1
)e'ale 8.2 21.6
%26
8;429
704:9
3042:
23H
White
*on4$hite
W F20.000
F20429C
F704:9C
F3046:C
F63C H
12.5 42.3
13.5 32.1
9.5 14.3
3.5 5.4
11 24.2
9.3 29.7
3.7 14.1
4.1 19.2
9.4 21.8
13.7 28.2
18.7 39.7
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press' biennial
consumption survey, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper
Readership, July 30, 2006
Pew finds that nearly 11% of the population has
listened to satellite radio and 25.5% owns an iPod or
other MP3 player. Also, both audiences skew male,
young, and affluent, as seen in the Arbitron data. While
satellite listeners also skew white, MP3 owners skew
non-white.
/ublic a!io
Whatever is happening in new audio, one traditional
platform from the old technology continues to thrive in
delivering news. Public, or non-commercial, radio has
been one of the success stories of the audio platforms
and news is at the crux of that success.
44
While most news organizations in the country have
seen audience declines, public radio, particularly
National Public Radio, has seen dramatic growth.
With the sudden expansion of new digital audio
technology, is that growth continuing?
For NPR, the answer is that the audience may have
reached a plateau for the moment. The largest of the
four main public radio providers nationally, NPR found
its weekly audience level steady at 26 million in 2005,
the latest year for which there are data, according to its
annual report.
45
The network distributes programming to
over 800 public radio stations nationwide, and to Sirius
satellite radio.
After a decade of remarkable growth, what does that
number mean? s growth for public radio slowing,
perhaps because of competition from satellite radio and
other new rivals? That is worth monitoring in the next
year or two.
The other public radio networks are significantly smaller
than NPR. American Public Media, with headquarters in
St. Paul, Minn., reports a weekly audience of 14.7
million listeners. According to Arbitron, it distributed
programming to 744 affiliates as of the spring of 2006.
Public
Radio
nternation
al, through
a
partnershi
p with the
British
Broadcasti
ng
Corporatio
n, reports
program
distributio
n to over
750 public
radio
stations
across the
U. S. And
the
Pacifica
Radio
Network
owns five
stations, in
San
Francisco,
New York,
Los
Angeles,
Houston
and
Washingto
n, D.C. t
also
distributes
to 103
local
affiliates
across the
nation.
46

Audience
numbers
for these
public
radio
networks
are
difficult to
track. The
numbers
are
calculated
internally
and not all
networks
release
them.
Where
an! When
a!io
Ha""ens
For the majority of Americans (excluding teenagers
and those over 65) most listening to traditional radio
occurs outside of the home, usually in the car or at
work. n the morning, Americans are almost evenly
split between listening to the radio at home (39%) and
in the car (37%), while only 23% tune in at work.
47

Though the audience is smaller in midday, from 10 a.m.
to 3 p.m., the majority of those that tune in do it from
work (41%). Audience
%2-
spikes again in the late afternoon, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., when most people listen to the AM/FM dial from their cars
(44%), again during their commutes. These numbers, for 2005, are similar to those of past years.
But it is interesting to note where people tune in to the different radio formats. Adult Contemporary is the most
popular format people listen to from work. Contemporary Christian, Sports and Alternative are the most popular
formats in the car. And News/Talk is the most popular format at home, followed by Mexican Regional.
Where /eo"le Bisten
2005
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006
Au!ience De'ogra"hics for *e$sATal(1 /ublic vs. 0o''ercial a!io
There are some distinct differences between public and commercial radio audiences. n a comprehensive look at
public radio statistics, Arbitron's Public Radio Today: How America Listens to Public Radio Stations records that
nearly 26 million listeners tune in to public radio in an average week.
48
Of the eight format types that Arbitron
looked at, the News/Talk format dominates listenership, commanding about 50% of public radio's audience, with
an average weekly audience of 13 million listeners.
Audience characteristics for public radio differ quite a bit from commercial audiences:
L Public radio listeners skew to the economically elite and more highly educated. Commercial news/talk
listeners are more blue-collar and more male.
49
L The public radio audience for news/talk is fairly evenly split by gender (52.5% male and 47.5% female),
while the commercial news, talk and information audience tilts more heavily male (56.1% and 43.9%
female). That gender gap in commercial news/talk narrowed 10% over the previous year (2004), from a
22% disparity.
50
L Nearly equal to the previous year, more than 71% of public radio news, talk and information listeners were
college graduates. That number for commercial listeners was 43.1%. High school-only graduates made up
almost 20% of the commercial news, talk and information audience but less than 7% of the public radio
audience. Both figures were unchanged from the previous year.
51
%2%
L Public radio audiences also tend to occupy a higher economic stratum. Some 50% earn an annual
income of $75,000 or more, up 3% over the previous year. By contrast, 36.8% of commercial news, talk
and information listeners earn that much.
52
L Public radio listeners, according to Scarborough data, are 14% more likely than all consumers to vote in
presidential elections and 24% more likely to vote in statewide elections.
53
Also, unlike commercial radio audiences, the audience for public radio tilts somewhat more Democratic, a trend
that has become more pronounced recently. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press, there is a ten-point difference between National Public Radio listeners who define
themselves as Democrats and those who identify as Republicans. Of those who tune in at least occasionally, 40%
identify as Democrats, 30% as Republicans and 39% as ndependents.
54
The total audience for news/talk/information, on commercial and public radio combined, tilts Republican,
according to Arbitron: 36% identify as Republicans, 27% as Democrats and 26% as ndependents.
55
One other difference between public radio audiences and commercial news/talk audiences is the time they spend
listening. According to the Arbitron data, people listen to commercial news, talk and information longer.
Commercial audience members aged 35 to 64 spend nine hours listening a week. News, talk and information
public radio listeners of the same age spend an hour and a half hours less, 7.5 hours. That gap has narrowed
slightly since last year.
56
One reason people spend less time with public radio news may be that most of news/talk
time on commercial stations tends to be talk, while most NPR stations include considerably more news programs
each day, and that news includes a certain amount of repeat programming. NPR's Morning Edition, for instance,
is two hours long each day before repeats. Rush Limbaugh alone, by contrast, airs for three hours.
Ti'e S"ent Bistening to *e$sATal(A 0o''ercial a!io +s. /ublic a!io
2005
7
5
4444444444444448444444444444444444444444444484444444444444444444444444444r4
12824 13834 25854
Age-Group
Commercial Radio |
Public Radio
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Arbitron, Public Radio Today: How America Listens to Public Radio Stations, July 27, 2006 and Radio Today: How Americans Listen to
Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006.
The /ortable /eo"le %eter
n the days when there was only one form of radio, measuring audience was simpler.
%2'
Today, in the age of podcasts and nternet streaming, things have become a good deal more complicated.
Advertisers and industry insiders increasingly are calling for some way of measuring audience across a variety of
audio platforms.
The Portable People Meters have been a long time coming. Arbitron, the dominant company measuring radio
ratings, began developing the audience measurement system in 1992. But the complexities inherent in the new
system and the need for repeated market testing made for a drawn-out debut process.
But in January of 2007, Arbitron finally began rolling out the new Portable People Meters. The first city to officially
launch the electronic measuring devices was Philadelphia, with a panel of 2,040 participating radio consumers.
That makes the fall 2006 the last period for diary-reported audience measurements for the Philadelphia market.
Houston will begin using the new system in the spring of 2007, and the top-ranked New York market will follow in
the fall.
57
Most people think the new system will represent a major advance. The people meters will replace a personal diary
system that relied on individual recollection and pencil-and-paper recording of radio listening. For years, media
organizations and marketers have questioned the reliability and effectiveness of personal diaries for measuring
audience. They worried in particular about the problems people had in accurately recalling or even identifying
what they had listened to. They also argued that the diaries relied too heavily on the perception that radio listening
is largely confined to the car.
The Portable People Meter, on the other hand, is a small electronic device, similar in size to a cell phone, that
measures exposure to a wide range of media, including traditional, satellite and online radio; broadcast, cable and
satellite television; cinema advertising and other electronic media. Randomly selected survey participants are
asked to carry the device with them in order to track the media forms they are exposed to, and when and where.
Some of the benefits of the people meters over diaries include: measuring audiences ages 6 and over (rather than
12 and older with diaries); evaluating larger sample sizes; providing more frequent listening statistics (reports will
be released monthly, along with smaller weekly reports); and reducing human error by electronically measuring a
participant's exposure to listening devices rather than depending on their memory recall.
Accuracy was a key force in the quest for an electronic method of measurement for radio audience. A study by
researchers from Ball State University, the Middletown Media Studies, found in 2003 that phone surveys and
diaries often underestimated actual media use.
58
The tendency is more pervasive with computer use, the nternet
and television, but it could become a more pervasive trend as all media use embraces its digital component. The
study compared phone surveys and diary reporting with observational studies, and found that observational
studies revealed more media use because people often didn't report simultaneous use of multiple media. The
Portable People Meter is expected to help correct for that.
But not all radio organizations are keen on the new measurement devices. Clear Channel Communications, the
largest radio station owner, has led the movement of dissenters. t did not participate in the rollout of the Portable
People Meters in Philadelphia and said it is keeping its options open with Requests for Proposals for alternative
ways to measure radio audience. Clear Channel's hesitations are not entirely clear, but press accounts have
suggested the company is concerned about the repeated delays in getting the technology rolled out or that it may
be holding out to negotiate a lower price with Arbitron.
The people meter technology also could be applied to TV audience measurement, and that raised the prospect of
collaboration between Arbitron and Nielsen Media Research, the leader in the TV-audience field. n 2000, Arbitron
invited Nielsen to enter a joint venture to deploy a pilot program for the people meters as both a radio and
television ratings service. Nielsen, looking to improve audience measurement in a digital age, worked with
Arbitron on adopting the people meter as a potential measurement system for television. But in 2006, after
investing heavily for five years, Nielsen abandoned the partnership. (See Local TV Audience). The two ratings
services continue to collaborate on a marketing research service called Project Apollo, which measures
advertising efficiency by employing the people meters to measure media exposure and ACNielsens's Homescan
to track product purchasing.
Despite the complexities of Arbitron's people meter, and Nielsen's role in its development, the emergence of new
media has forced media measuring services to dramatically rethink their methods. And perhaps more
%30
revolutionary are the partnerships formed among media platforms as the boundaries between media both shrink
and blur.
)ootnotes
1. Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006. Note: Radio
audience was measured in the spring quarter of 2005. Weekly cume rating indicates the number of
undifferentiated individuals who tune in !ee6ly and is the standard unit of measurement by which Arbitron
calculates total radio audience. (Undifferentiated individuals are different people who tune in.)
2. bid.
3. bid.
4. Yet the future is not necessarily so promising for country music. According to Veronis Suhler Stevenson, in
2005, some stations began dropping the country format. The number went from 2,021 stations in 2004 to 2,008 in
2005. And since 2000, the number has declined 8.3%. Some say the drop is from the second- and third-ranked
format in a given market, not the leading stations. Demographics might also explain the drop, since data show
that country listeners tend to be more male and less affluent than listeners to other formats. But the data suggest
that this is changing, with country music attracting more female listeners. Meanwhile, stations are adding more
news and talk formats, probably because they attract a younger and more affluent demographic. From 2004 to
2005, the news/talk/sports format (note: Veronis includes sports), increased from 1,686 stations to 1,750. [Source:
Veronis Suhler Stevenson, Communications ndustry Forecast, 2006-2010.]
5. Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006 .
6. bid.
-. bid.
%. Mary Madden , Pew nternet & American Life Project, Podcast Downloading, November 2006,
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PP_Podcasting.pdf
'. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press' biennial news consumption survey, Online Papers
Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July 30, 2006.
10.bid.
11.bid.
12.bid.
13.Bob Papper, RTNDF/Ball State University, Future of News Survey, October 2006.
14.Erik Sass, Media Daily News, Subs Surge for Satellite Radio, Losses Too, October 5, 2006.
15.Sirius and XM, end-of-year news releases: Sirius Exceeds 6 Million Subscribers and Achieves First Cash Flow
Positive Quarter, http://investor.sirius.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseD=224031&cat=&newsroom= XM Adds
Nearly 1.7 Million New Subscribers in 2006 for Total of More Than 7.6 Million Subscribers, Achieves Positive Cash
Flow From Operations During Fourth Quarter 2006, http://xmradio.mediaroom.com/index.php?
s=press_releases&item=1409 .
16.Public awareness of satellite radio is also growing, probably due in large part to chance exposure, like
listening in other people's cars or rental cars, as well as high-profile talk talent on the stations. According to the
most recent survey data from Arbitron, more people in 2005 had heard about both stations. But Sirius saw the
%31
greatest leap in public awareness, putting it on par with XM. As of January 2006, 61% of those surveyed had
heard about both XM and Sirius. Compared to 2004, that was a 33 percentage-point increase for Sirius and a 20
percentage-point increase for XM. Also, the rivals have spent quite a lot of money on advertising, notably on
promotions during sports events. Source: Arbitron, The nfinite Dial: Radio's Digital Platform, April 13, 2006.
1-. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press' biennial news consumption survey, Online
Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July 30, 2006.
1%. bid.
1'. Arbitron, The nfinite Dial: Radio's Digital Platform, April 13, 2006.
20. bid.
21. John Horrigan, Pew nternet & American Life Project, Home Broadband Adoption 2006, May 28, 2006,
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PP_Broadband_trends2006.pdf. Survey question: Does the computer you use at
home connect to the nternet through a dial-up telephone line, or do you have some other type of connection,
such as a DSL-enabled phone line, a cable TV modem, a wireless connection, or a T-1 or fiber optic connection?
22. According to the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC Releases Data on High-Speed Services
for nternet Access Report, http://www.cybertelecom.org/data/broadband.htm), there were 50.2 million high-speed
nternet subscribers by the end of 2005, about 20% fewer than Pew nternet's total. The FCC bases its data on
industry reporting of broadband infrastructure deployment.
23. A podcast is probably best known as an audio or video file that is distributed online, usually for the
purpose of downloading it to a portable MP3 player (though it can also be listened to/viewed straight from a
computer). The term podcast was first coined by the journalist the Ben Hammersley in an article published in
The Guardian in February 2004. Just one year later, the New Oxford American Dictionary designated it the word
of the year because of its rapid evolution from a techie underworld activity to a mainstream medium.
24. The Web site podcastalley.com does for podcasts what technorati.com does for blogs, which is to
say, it tallies, aggregates and discusses the universe of podcasts. As of early December 2006 the total
number of podcasts that they tracked was 27,000.
25. Pew nternet & American Life Project reports that 70% of the adult American population (over 18) use the
nternet, which represented 141 million people as of December 2006. The total number of podcasters is an
estimate based on this figure.
26. Mary Madden , Pew nternet & American Life Project, Podcast Downloading, November 2006.
2-. Arbitron, The nfinite Dial: Radio's Digital Platform, 2006.
2%. The Diffusion Group, http://www.tdgresearch.com/
2'. Arbitron, The nfinite Dial: Radio's Digital Platform, April 13, 2006.
30. Mary Madden , Pew nternet & American Life Project, Podcast Downloading, November
2006, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PP_Podcasting.pdf
31. http://hdradio.com/stations_on_the_air.php
32. BA Financial Networks tracks some 14,000 commercial and non-commercial radio stations in their
database.
33. For a format list of both HD1 and HD2 channels by market,
see http://hdradio.com/hd_digital_radio_format_list.php
%32
34. Arbitron, The nfinite Dial: Radio's Digital Platform, April 13, 2006
35.bid.
36.bid.
37.bid.
3%. bid.
3'. bid.
40. bid.
41. bid.
42. bid.
43. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press' biennial consumption survey, Online Papers
Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July 30, 2006.
44. Though public radio stations operate locally, much of their content comes from four national program
service providers: National Public Radio, Pacifica Radio, American Public Media and Public Radio nternational.
These radio groups operate a lot like a TV network, supplying programming to public-radio member stations for a
fee. The local member station then typically combines nationally broadcast material with locally created content
45. NPR Annual Report, 2005.
46. The total reach of public radio is extensive. The Media Audit, a media market survey group, estimated
that public radio, as a format of its own (including news, music and other programming), was the fourth- most-
listened-to radio format in the country. n line with Arbitron's findings, the media researchers found that the
commercial news/talk format took the lead with 19.4 million weekly listeners, followed by country music with 18.5
million weekly listeners, and the Christian format with 17 million. n a category all of its own, public radio ranked
fourth, commanding 14.7 million listeners each week. Furthermore, the survey found that public radio was
reported as the No. 2 format for respondents was asked for their most listened to format.
4-. Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006.
4%. Arbitron, Public Radio Today: How America Listens to Public Radio Stations, July 27, 2006.
4'. Arbitron, Public Radio Today: How America Listens to Public Radio Stations, July 27, 2006 and
Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006.
50. bid.
51. bid.
52. bid.
53. Arbitron, Public Radio Today: How America Listens to Public Radio Stations, July 27, 2006, with data
from Scarborough Research.
54. The Pew data indicating a Democratic tilt in public radio lines up with trends that Scarborough Research
has also identified. Scarborough uses an index to arrive at its findings. According to its data, public radio listeners
are 12% more likely to be Democrats, and if ndependent, they are 41% more likely to lean Democratic.
%33
55. Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 200
56. Arbitron, Public Radio Today: How America Listens to Public Radio Stations, July 27, 2006 and
Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006.
5-. See Arbitron's Portable People Meter rollout schedule for the top 50 markets
at: http://www.arbitron.com/portable_people_meters/ppm_rollout.ht
5%. Middletown Media Studies, Ball State University, Spring 2004.
-cono'ics
The economics of radio are in transition. Revenues for most companies are fairly flat. Advertising, moreover, has
become a double-edged sword. f there is too much of it, that can drive listeners away in a medium with so much
competition. Some companies have reduced the number of commercials they carry and raised their ad rates.
At the same time, the finances of the new technologies are still evolving and remain uncertain. The picture,
generally, is of a medium in which changes are occurring rapidly.
evenue of Tra!itional a!io
As the notion of radio listening expands to include new digital options, traditional over-the-air radio stations and
owners are faced with tough financial decisions.
n the short run, the conventional metrics suggest the industry is managing to get by. But the signs that something
bigger needs to change seem unmistakable.
By one basic measure of financial health, company revenues from radio, the industry is treading water. n the year
for which the latest full data are available, 2005, things were generally flat. Most of the top radio broadcasting
companies increased their year-over-year radio-based revenues only marginally from 2004 to 2005. And one,
Cumulus Broadcasting, was down.
Total evenues for To" Ten 0o'"anies. 2003
%34
Design Your Own Chart
Source: BAfn Media Access Pro
The signs for the 2006 results do not look all that much more promising.
A!vertising
Another measure of financial health is overall radio advertising revenue, and in 2006 the industry was flat.
According to the Radio Advertising Bureau, total ad revenue was up just 1 percent in 2006 over the year before.
1
Much of the gain for the year came from national advertising, the smaller of radio's two main revenue sources.
National grew 5% to $3.55 billion, while radio's biggest income generator, local advertising, fell 1 percent to
$15.48 billion.
2
The numbers for the year might have been even worse had it not been for a boost from the fourth quarter, when
total advertising revenues rose 3%. And much of that came in October (up 6%) and November (3%), suggesting
that at least part of it came from election-year advertising.
*e$s )or'at Stations
Where does news fit into this economic equation?
evenues of To" 0o'"anies1 Total vs. *e$s evenue
2005
%35
Source: BAfn Media Access Pro
Design Your Own Chart
For the larger
companies, newsrooms
generated only a small
portion of total
company revenue in
the latest year for
which there are data,
2005. Of the top five
total revenue-
generating companies
(Clear Channel, CBS
Radio, Entercom, Cox
Radio, and Citadel),
CBS was the only one
that earned more than
15% of its revenue
from its news
operations (21.3%).
3

Clear Channel, the top
overall revenue-earner,
generated 10.4% from
news. Entercom
brought in 13% and
Cox, 12%. Bonneville,
which ranked 11 th on
the list of top revenue-
earning companies,
however, brought in
about 35% of its total
revenue from its news
operations.
Other research paints
an even more dismal
picture of the economic
viability of radio news.
One major source of
information is an
annual survey of news
directors conducted for
the Radio and
Television News
Directors Association
by Bob Papper of Ball
State University. Since
2003, the survey has
shown a steady decline
in the number of
newsrooms turning a
profit for their stations,
at least according to
news directors who
said they knew whether
or not their stations
were turning a profit.
The number of stations
actually losing money
has moved up and
down. n the 2006
report, the number of
newsrooms showing
losses rose.
4
a!io *e$s
/rofitability
Survey of news directors,
1996-2005
%36
Source: RTNDA/Ball State University Newsroom Surveys
Note: Based on survey responses of news directors
Design Your Own Chart
Looking at newsrooms
by market size, it
appears that those in
major markets and
large markets are doing
better than their
counterparts in medium
and small markets.
More news directors in
the larger markets
reported profit gains
than reported losses.
Few directors in
medium-sized markets
reported losses; most
reported that they broke
even. Losses were
reported by a greater
percentage of small-
market directors, but on
the whole, they broke
even.
5
a!io *e$s
/rofitability by
%ar(et SiIe
2005
%3-
Design Your Own Chart
Source: RTNDA/Ball State University Surveys
Note: Based on survey responses of news directors. * Major markets are those with 1 million or more potential listeners. Large markets are 25,000
to 1 million; medium markets are 50,000 to 250,000; and small markets are fewer than 50,000 listeners.
Satellite a!io
f traditional radio, including news, was facing trouble, could the new audio formats be more successful?
Satellite radio, one of the first of the newer technologies, showed early promise, but as with its audience picture, it
seemed to lose its economic momentum in 2006. The two companies - Sirius and XM - announced in February
2007 their intent to merge. Though rumors of a merger percolated in the media at the end of 2006, both
companies initially denied such intentions. (See Ownership). So what were the economic factors that determined
the merger?
For both XM and Sirius, the average cost of increasing new subscriptions has been high, as both have aimed to
attract big-name and big-cost talk personalities like Howard Stern and Oprah Winfrey. n the end-of-year
Securities and Exchange Commission filings for 2005, Sirius posted an $863 million net loss, XM $667 million.
6
At the onset of 2006, both satellite stations predicted they would reach the magical break-even point by year's
end. That didn't look likely as 2006 came to an end. Based on preliminary financial data, both companies said
they achieved positive cash flow bringing in more than they spent in the fourth quarter of 2006. While that is
a positive indicator, it isn't by itself a guarantee of longer-term economic viability, since cash flow doesn't
necessarily account for things like large capital expenditures or deferred payments to talent that weren't paid
during quarter. That is one reason the two companies felt compelled to merge.
Another indicator for the economic status of satellite radio is the sales of the radio devices themselves. According
to Business .ee63 Sirius and XM sold more than 325,000 portable satellite radios in the U.S. from September
2005 to August 2006, an 88% increase over the previous year. Revenue from those sales increased by nearly
50%, generating $80 million, according to consultants at the NPD Group.
7
The industry has also been beleaguered by legal challenges. n May 2006, record companies filed a lawsuit,
accusing XM of copyright infringement over portable music devices that allowed users to store and download
songs from XM music channels. Record labels demanded increased licensing fees, which Sirius had already
agreed to pay, though the amount has not been disclosed.
8
XM was also asked by the FCC to discontinue
%3%
production of three handheld radio devices that the agency said failed to meet FCC broadcast emission standards
and created conflicts with public radio signals.
9
The two companies' decision to merge may alleviate some of these financial pressures. t remains to be seen,
however, if the Federal Communications Commission will allow it to happen.
Tal( Talent on Satellite a!io
n efforts to increase the popularity of satellite radio, both XM and Sirius continue to seek high-profile
entertainment for talk shows. n September 2006, Oprah Winfrey launched her own 24-hour talk radio channel,
Oprah and Friends, on XM Radio. How much of this is Oprah and how much is her friends is uncertain, but the
schedule line-up suggests that the friends may make up the vast majority of the program time. n the ceaseless
competition between the companies, Sirius signed on Jane Pratt, founder and former editor-in-chief of Jane
magazine.
For both XM and Sirius, the average cost of increasing new subscriptions has been high, as both try to attract big
names, which means big-cost.
10
The Oprah deal, for instance, was sealed in February 2006 when she signed a
three-year contract with XM for $55 million. Compared to Sirius's 2005 5-year deal with Stern at $500 million,
XM's contract with Oprah was a relative bargain. But that is the gambling table where satellite radio has chosen to
sit down. On a virtually commercial-free platform, it's a high-stakes game to increase revenue through
subscriptions, which the companies have been betting celebrity personalities can attract. Now they are betting on
the Federal Communications Commission allowing them to merge.
HD a!io
How significant financially is the emergence of HD radio? At this point, the financial impact is marginal. But the
potential is there.
One deterrent to growth is cost. There are no subscription fees, but HD requires dedicated receivers to receive
the multiple signals the technology offers. The receivers are expensive compared with the cost of nternet radio or
even satellite radio (the basic models cost roughly $180, compared to $60 for satellite)
11
and choice is limited.
Manufacturers of the receivers are trying to make them more affordable, and the public seems ready to welcome
that: Arbitron reports that 35% of the population would be willing to buy an HD radio if it were reasonably priced,
at $50 or less.
12
That number drops to 21% when the value of the hypothetical HD radio is $100, to 9% at $200 and
to a meager 5% at $300.
Some radio executives hope that as more stations provide HD signals, demand and supply may converge at a
price that the average consumer considers reasonable. n October of 2006, WYY in Baltimore became the
1,000th station in the nation to broadcast with a digital signal.
13
n an effort to expand the reach of HD radio and make it profitable, stations banded together in December 2005 as
the HD Digital Alliance. Peter Ferrara, CEO of the alliance, told Radio nk's Joe Howard in an interview that the
alliance gave HD radio providers a chance to combine their resources and promote themselves.
14
For example,
they have worked with companies like BMW to put HD radios in new cars, in select models as a $500 option.
Ferrara said eight other automakers are on board in the next couple of years.
According to Ferrara, station members are joining the alliance because they understand that this is where our
industry is headed. Just as we went from AM to FM, going from AM and FM to HD is an equal if not greater
quantum leap in technology.
15
After all, some say that HD radio holds promise to help compensate for a medium that has been permitted to
consolidate to proportions that limit consumer choice. With media ownership rules being bandied about again at
the Federal Communications Commission, portending further deregulation and consolidation, HD radio could offer
a solution to consumers worried about limited choice and local content. As the Washington Post writer Rob
Pegoraro wrote, n lieu of a breakup of radio conglomerates such as Clear Channel or a massive shift in
%3'
programming philosophy at individual stations, those 'HD2' channels may be radio's last, best hope to escape its
playlist prison.
16
Internet a!io
Measuring revenue from nternet radio is not a refined science. Most radio Web sites add their revenue
statements to the radio station's overall revenue figure, or in the case of networks like NPR, to the total
organization's economic figures. NPR said in its most recent annual report, for the financial year 2005, that it
spent 3.5% of its total expenses, about $5 million, on its online product.
17
One of the few indicators we have on the economic viability of nternet radio comes from the 2006 RTNDA/Ball
State University Annual Survey of news directors. Based on the survey responses, only 4% of news directors
reported that their news station Web sites were turning a profit. Some 20% said they were breaking even, and 11%
said the Web sites were losing money. The remainder of news directors said they did not know.
18
Another indicator of the economic status of nternet radio is advertiser and consumer expenditures online.
According to the media and communications analysis firm Veronis Suhler Stevenson, online radio advertising
spending (the standard of measurement used as a close proxy for revenue) rose 77% in 2005 to $60 million.
19
Furthermore, consumer revenue to stations (subscriptions to nternet radio and podcasts) increased 170% in 2005
over the previous year, to $27 million.
nternet radio often considered a competitor to traditional radiohas demonstrated itself as a boon to some
stations, particularly local public radio stations who offer an eclectic mix of content and unique talk programs. An
October article in the Wall Street Journal highlighted the success of KCRW, based in Santa Monica, Calif., which
reported tens of thousands of new listeners who were checking out its online stream. n October of 2006, Google
Analytics, a Web analysis service, recorded 760,000 unique visitors to the site, compared to 585,000 the year
before.
20
Furthermore, the nternet can add a potentially new audience base to radio people outside the local
community. KCRW, for example, maintains its largest online audience segment from Southern California, but its
non-local audience collectively exceeds that number, with New York leading the pack, followed by San Francisco
and then Tokyo.
Since public radio stations generally earn a large percentage of their revenue from listener pledges, the new
online audience offers a potentially expanded pool of pledge donors. A management consultant for KCRW said that
even if just 1% of its growing Web audience were to become members, it would be a financial success.
21
n the case of KCRW, 1,000 of the 16,000 pledges it received in a recent drive came from outside the Southern
California broadcast area. Could the nternet be a boon for public radio? As Ruth Seymour, KCRW's station
manager, told the Wall Street Journal, One of the things we know is how much we really don't know.
22
/o!casting
The profitability of podcasting heading into 2007 also remains more a matter of potential than reality.
n July 2006, Nielsen Analytics released a report called The Economics of Podcasting, which reported that 6% of
U.S. adults (9 million Web users) had downloaded podcasts in the past 30 days. Almost 4 in 10, or 38%, of those
downloaders said they listened to traditional radio less because of podcasting. The most successful podcasts
were garnering as many as two million downloads a month.
23
Those numbers make podcasts an attractive outlet to advertisers. With the medium still in its infancy, a few
podcasts are already starting to generate income. National Public Radio has been actively attracting sponsors on
its podcasts. Will it work? That is less clear. According to the Nielsen survey, 60% of survey respondents said that
they always fast - forward past commercials.
24
-cono'ics of /ublic a!io
%40
When people think about the financial picture for radio, they often overlook one of the most important platforms for
news public radio. The fact that those stations do not carry commercials hardly means those stations are
immune from financial pressure.
Public radio stations have witnessed some major changes in their funding sources in the past several years.
Revenue once came largely from the federal government and listener donations, but public radio budgets
nowadays are increasingly dependent on corporate advertising revenue. According to Tom Thomas, co-chief
executive of Station Resource Group, a Takoma Park, Md., public radio consulting firm, public radio stations now
count 18% of their revenue from businesses and 11% from the federal government. n 1980, by contrast, public
radio got a third of its funding from the federal government and only 8% from businesses.
25
The shift has raised
some concerns. A July Wall Street Journal article printed testimony from several listeners who felt that their local
public stations had defected to the side of profit-maximization, causing them to tune out.
NPR, the largest programming service provider for public radio, experienced a gain in net assets of $17.7 million
for the financial year 2005, according to the system's annual report.
26
Of its total revenue for the year, $159 million,
about $81 million came from membership dues, station programming fees and distribution services, which is about
$3 million more than the previous year. Another $57.6 million came from grants, contributions and sponsorships in
2005, which compares with $267.8 million in 2004; most of that derived from the $225 million gift from the estate of
the late Joan Kroc, widow of McDonalds Corporation founder, Ray Kroc.
As for NPR's expenses for the fiscal year 2005, they increased from the previous year by about $16 million.
27
Spending on news and information operations increased by about $6.6 million, or 13%, to a total of $56.7 million.
<nline #urus. #oogle. Hea!ing to a!ioJ
n 2006, Google, the new dominant company in search and online advertising, took its first glance at radio. n
January, it acquired dMarc, a digital solutions provider for the radio industry. dMarc is known for facilitating
relationships between advertisers and radio stations via an automated advertising platform that streamlines the
process. The acquisition cost Google $102 million in cash, though performance-based payments could tack on
additional $1 billion over the next three years.
28
The benefit to Google reportedly was to create another channel of distribution namely radio, though it is looking
at print newspapers as well for its online AdWord clients. According to Tim Armstrong, vice president of
advertising sales at Google, We anticipate that this acquisition will bring new ad dollars and accountability to
radio by combining Google's expansive network of advertisers with dMarc's talented team and innovative radio
advertising technology.
29
With dMarc's technology, Google began testing Google Audio Ads, its new radio advertisement service, in
December of 2006. The service allows advertisers to target their radio listeners by location, station type, and even
the days and times they tune in. At a point when radio advertising revenue is ailing, the sorting and targeting of
consumers through Google technology might breathe some life back into radio budgets. But some worry that
Google's approach may be too radical. Lew Dickey, chief executive of radio station owner Cumulus Media nc.,
told the Wall Street Journal, .the Google approach.represents the antithesis of value-added selling, or having
trained advertising specialists who can offer advertisers solutions based on their experience.
)ootnotes
1.Total advertising revenue includes national, local, network and non-spot advertising (which includes non-
advertising revenues such as event sponsorship, concert tickets and web revenue).
2.Radio Advertising Bureau, Radio Revenue for 2006 Up 1 Percent Following a 3 Percent Jump in Fourth
Quarter, February 1, 2007.
3.BAfn Media Access Pro, unpublished data.
%41
4. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, News, Staffing and Profitability, The
Communicator, October 2006. Note: The numbers are affected by the widespread tendency of news directors not
to know whether their newsrooms are profitable. Since 1997 when the question of profitability has been asked in
this survey, at least 50% of respondents did not know how to answer the question.
5. bid.
6. Erik Sass, Media Daily News, Subs Surge for Satellite Radio, Losses Too, October 5, 2006. Note: new end-of-
year numbers for 2006 were not available in time for this report.
-. Olga Kharif, Business Week, The Sirius Stiletto: A First Look, September 20, 2006.
%. Bloomberg News, XM Radio Talks with Labels over New Fees, September 21, 2006.
'. Kim Hart, Washington Post, Decision by FCC a Break for XM Radio, August 28, 2006.
10. Erik Sass, Media Daily News, Subs Surge for Satellite Radio, Losses Too, October 5, 2006.
11.The price range for HD Radios at Best Buy, as of December 2006, was $179.99 to $999.99.
12. Arbitron, The nfinite Dial: Radio's Digital Platform, April 13, 2006.
13. biquity Digital, HD Radio Achieves Historic Milestone as 1,000 th U.S. Station Begins Broadcasting
in Digital, October 16, 2006.
14. Radio nk, Joe Howard Peter Ferrara: Launching Radio into Digital Space, May 8, 2006
15. bid.
16. Rob Pegoraro, Washington Post, HD Radio: Clear Potential, but Uncertain Future, April 30, 2006.
1-. NPR Annual Report, 2005.
1%. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, TV Web Sites Helping the
Bottom Line, The Communicator, May 2006. The results, however, are based on a small sample (139 radio news
directors) and should be read only as an indicator of the profitability of radio news Web sites.
1'. Veronis Suhler Stevenson, Communications ndustry Forecast 2006-2010
20. Sarah McBride, Wall Street Journal, Public Radio Goes Global over the Web, October 31, 2006.
21. bid.
22. bid.
23. Nielsen Analytics, The Economics of Podcasting, July 20, 2006.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.55dc65b4a7d5adff3f65936147a062a0/?vgnextoid=c
b34338e8998c010VgnVCM100000ac0a260aRCRD. According to the survey, the average length of podcasts
being listened to was 44 minutes. And 72% of respondents said they downloaded one to three podcasts a week.
Another 10% of respondents were considered heavy users because they downloaded eight or more a week.
24. bid.
%42
25.Sarah McBride, Wall Street Journal, Mixed Messages: As Sponsorship Sales Blossom, Public Radio Walks a
Fine Line, March 17, 2006.
26.NPR Annual Report, 2005.
2-.bid.
2%.dMarc press release, Google to Acquire dMarc Broadcasting, January 17, 2006.
2'.bid.
<$nershi"
One story above all others dominated the landscape of radio ownership in 2006. For a decade Clear Channel was
the industry giant, owning nearly triple the number of stations of its nearest rival, leading the way in automation,
revenues and profits. The company rode the train of consolidation and expansion allowed by deregulation in the
1990s more aggressively than anyone else. To many in and outside the industry, it stood as a possible harbinger of
where radio was headed.
Thus when Clear Channel suggested in October that Wall Street pressures and the focus on stock price were such
that it could no longer manage its future as a publicly traded company, people took notice.
For now, Clear Channel's dramatic move stands alone. But another player, Disney, has decided to leave the field
altogether. Clear Channel's decision also comes a year after other companies, namely Viacom, began to split
operations; and several radio companies, led by Clear Channel itself, experimented with shorter and less frequent
advertising formats.
0lear 0hannel Deal
While some analysts may have looked at the declining revenues and share value of the large radio corporation as
clear indicators for major economic changes, few could have predicted how suddenly or how quickly the public-to-
private transaction would be made.
The details of the sale bear repeating. n late October, Clear Channel announced it was being acquired by two
private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners for a total of $18.7 billion, plus the
$8.1 billion in Clear Channel debt. By year's end the company also was discussing selling off 448 of its smaller-
market radio stations, as well as its television stations.
Clear Channel had rocketed to dominance in response to changed radio ownership rules written into the 1996
Telecommunications Act. Three years later, in 1999, the Wall Street Journal named Clear Channel the fifth best-
performing stock of the 1990s. By 2000, the company had purchased over 1,000 new stations. But some of the
competition and many consumers grumbled that Clear Channel's domination was diminishing the quality of the
AM/FM radio dial by monopolizing key markets and homogenizing content. Meanwhile, the company's outdoor
advertising division also swelled in dominance and value. By 2004, both Clear Channel and shareholders started
to notice the company's growing pains.
%43
Before long, the boom was over. n response, Clear Channel initiated a grand share-repurchasing program. And
in 2005, it spun off its entertainment division in addition to 10% of its outdoor advertising operation. The company
also experimented with new ways to maximize advertising revenue with its Less is More campaign, an attempt to
slash the length of ads at a slightly reduced cost to advertisers.
Despite the fact that Clear Channel remained the highest revenue-generating radio owner $3.6 billion in 2005,
over $1 billion more than the second-place competitor, CBS Radio at $2.3 billion Clear Channel's stock value
had been sliding.
1
Five years ago, its stock was valued in the range of $50.
2
n the months before the sale, stock
values were regularly dipping below $30. With the announcement of the merger, stocks improved to the $35
range.
As of December 2006, it was not known whether the Mays family would continue operating the company, though
both sides offered the usual praise for each other. But the step Clear Channel took is becoming a popular one for
large media owners. n both the radio and newspaper industries, public owners have been selling their
corporations to big-money private owners.
3
Over all, the public-to-private strategy seems to be motivated by an agenda for long-term growth. According to the
BA Financial Network radio analyst Mark Fratrik, By going private, these companies and their financial backers
believe that they can grow in value over the long term without being concerned about investors' quarterly
targets.
4
Underscoring that sentiment, an internal memo from Clear Channel said of the deal, We need to shift our focus to
meet new demands in order to grow our audience and our revenue. Ultimately, we expect our overall size to
grow in 2007.
5
Walt Disney 0o'"anyAAB0A0ita!el
The year of 2006 began with the Walt Disney Company's decision to sell ABC Radio, consisting of 22 stations, to
Citadel Broadcasting. Disney had been planning the sale for some time, having begun the auctioning process in
the summer of 2005. According to Disney's CEO, Robert ger, the sale would help the company focus on its core
TV, movie and theme park businesses.
6
Until mid-January, though, Citadel was not considered the frontrunner for sealing the deal. Other companies
competing in the auction were competing broadcasters, Entercom, Emmis, Cox Radio and Cumulus, as well as the
private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.
The agreement between Disney and Citadel, announced on February 6, 2006, was valued at $2.7 billion. t will
elevate Citadel Broadcasters to the third largest radio owner, up from sixth place. The deal is expected be final in
early 2007.
The To" 0o'"anies
Despite the Clear Channel sale, and with its planned sale of 448 smaller stations still to be completed, the basic
outline of radio ownership who owned what stations remained fairly stable in 2006, along the lines of the
previous year.
*u'ber of Stations <$ne! by To" Broa!casting 0o'"anies
2003
an( <$ner Total X
of
Stations
X of
*e$s
Stations
8 0lear 0hannel
1184 132
2 0u'ulus Broa!casting
300 31
7 0ita!el Broa!casting
223 19
%44
: 0BS a!io
179
22
3 -!ucational %e!ia )oun!ation
161 0
2 A'erican )a'ily Association
128 0
6 Sale' 0o''unications
106 23
; -nterco'
103 15
9 Saga 0o''unications
87 12
80 0o& a!io
78 6
M88 egent 0o''unications
74 7
82 AB0ADisney
72 0
87 a!io <ne
69 4
M8: *# %e!ia BB0
59 3
83 *e&t%e!ia #rou"
58 6
82 )a'ily Stations
54 0
86 -ntravision
52 0
8; Three -agles
46 4
89 %ulitcultural a!io
45 3
20 *assau Broa!casting
45 3
Source: BAfn Media Access Pro, unpublished data
Clear Channel, as of the close of 2005 when that information was gathered, continued to be the clear leader in the
total number of stations it owned nearly four times the number of total stations as its next competitor, Cumulus.
7
Similarly, Clear Channel owned more than four times the number of news channels as Cumulus. But in proportion
to the total number of stations owned, 23 rd-ranked Cherry Creek formats about 24% of its stations as news,
followed by 22% of Salem's stations and 15% of Entercom Communication's stations.
The list of top owners, according to the number of stations owned, looks much different than the top owners by
revenue. The top three owners by revenue are Clear Channel, CBS and Entercom (See Economics).
Changes in ownership through 2006 have been marginal. But 2007 promises some big changes, anticipated in
large part by Clear Channel's expected sale of almost 450 radio stations.
0hange in Stations <$ne! by the To" 0o'"anies
1999-2005
%45
Design Your Own Chart
Source: BAfn Media Access Pro Note: *Due to restructuring within the Viacom Corportation, nfinity is now CBS Radio
n looking at the number of markets reached by the top companies, as in years past, Clear Channel dominated for
the latest year available, 2005: 189 markets versus 56 for Cumulus, which had the second-largest market reach.
8
The top five companies other than Clear Channel, however, are closely clustered in the number of markets
reached, with a spread of only 23 markets separating second-place Cumulus and fifth-place CBS Radio. The
figures are similar to those for the previous year, 2004. The only real change was that nfinity, which is now CBS
Radio, lost some of its market reach, going from 41 markets in 2004 to 33 in 2005 as CBS.
*u'ber of %ar(ets eache! by To" 0o'"anies
2005
%46
Design Your Own Chart
Source: BAfn Media Access Pro Note: Due to restructuring within the Viacom Corportation, nfinity is now CBS Radio
Air A'erica Ban(ru"tcy
One other major development in the ownership picture of radio in 2006 was the growing financial woes of the
fledgling liberal talk radio network Air America.
Air America, begun in 2004 as a liberal alternative to the burgeoning array of conservative talk personalities, filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on October 13. The announcement came after two weeks of speculation and
rumors, accompanied by fervent denials from Al Franken and others at Air America.
The truth of Air America's dire financial situation was brought to the forefront by the owner of one of the stations that
carried the programming, claiming that the network had not been paying its bills.
n its two years of operation, Air America had never been profitable. t reported losses of $8.6 million in its first
year, 2004, and more than double that, $19.6 million, in 2005.
9
As the Radio Business Report observed on October
16, Seems the network got off the ground with shoestrings and credit cards in the first place. So it was never
running with a decent amount of cash.
But an internal ABC Radio Network memo disclosed in late October suggested that Air America's financial losses
may not have been due entirely to poor business decisions and lack of public interest in liberal talk, but also to an
advertiser blacklist of the network. n the memo, ABC Radio Network told their affiliate stations that about 90
prominent advertisers led by Hewlett-Packard, and including Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Visa, Exxon Mobil, Cingular
and McDonalds did not want their advertisements running during any syndicated Air America programming the
ABC stations carried.
10
The consequence of the ad blackout to Air America would be no sponsorship from
advertisers participating in the blackout, which could significantly reduce revenue for the network. Reports of such
practices are not uncommon; several advertisers exerted similar censorship of their ad content on the Howard
Stern show. But because of his popularity, the ad boycott did little to affect the profitability of his program. The
practice is also known to occur on other politically opinionated programming like Rush Limbaugh, industry
professionals say. The leak of the ABC memo, and the identification of the advertisers, however, was unusual in
this case.
Air America has continued programming on the network's 90-plus affiliates around the country, though some of
those affiliates have hinted that they might drop the liberal program from their stations.
%4-
n late January, Stephen Green, a New York real estate entrepreneur, agreed to acquire Air America for $4 25
million, which could mark new beginnings for the network The only major change announced with the purchase
was that the popular talk host and comedian Al Franken would be leaving the network on February 14 amid
rumors that he'll pursue a seat in the U S Senate Green said that his goals for the company are to stabilize its
finances, build upon the current Air America line-up to assure the best radio talent possible, and extend the
platform beyond that of radio in order to reach a wider audience
11
0lear 0hannel Ti'eline
The following timeline highlights some of the major activities that occurred in the brief but immense Clear Channel
buyout
October 24, 2006 Average closing share of Clear Channel stock in the 30 previous trading days $29 99 a share
October 2! Clear Channel announces it is evaluating strategic alternatives Hires Goldman, Sachs & Company
as financial adviser
October "0 Providence Equity Partners, the Blackstone Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company are the
first to approach Clear Channel about a buyout and become the favored bidders Bain Capital and Thomas H Lee
Partners and The Texas Pacific Group are the second consortium to bid Rumors circulate that Carlyle Group LLC
and Apollo Management LP make up a third interested party
November #"
L The Texas Pacific Group, who had been part of the Bain Capital and Thomas H Lee Partners
consortium, drops out
L Clear Channel makes major restructuring plans at its radio stations by eliminating almost all of its
overnight live disk jockeys, replacing them with pre-recorded voice-tracking
L Bids close
November #6
L Clear Channel announces definitive merger agreement with Thomas H Lee Partners, L P , and Bain
Capital Partners, LLC
L Though the buyout is valued at $18 7 billion, the total cost of the company is $26 7 billion, including the
approximate $8 billion of debt Shareholders will receive cash for their shares at a price of $37 60 per
share, an increase of approximately 25% over the average price before Clear Channel announced plans to
sell
, According to Thompson Financial, the transaction is the fourth-largest buyout in history, ranking behind
KKR's 1988 buyout of RJR Nabisco nc for $25 1 billion; the $218 billion buyout of the airport
development company BAA PLC in February 2006; and the $21 2 billion paid for the hospital company
HCA nc in July of 2006
, Clear Channel also announces plans to sell 448 radio stations in smaller markets (outside of the top 100
markets), as well as its television broadcasting division, which consists of 51 stations in 25 markets
December $ The date by which competing bids from third-party competitors had to be submitted Analysts at
Merrill Lynch, suggesting that the company's worth was undervalued, said that Clear Channel should entertain
additional offers Furthermore, analysts at Stifel Nicolaus found the $37 60 share price to be low and estimated a
proper selling price to be $42 a share
January 43 155; The date by which all negotiations with competing third parties were terminated Thomas H Lee
Partners, L P , and Bain Capital Partners, LLC remain the new buyers
%an&ary #', 200$ Some Clear Channel shareholders voice resistance to the sale, including the largest holder,
Fidelity Management & Research, and other top 10 holders
%4%
(ebr&ary 2", 200$ The deadline for bids on the assets that it put up for sale: 448 radio stations and 42 television
stations.
)arc* 2#, 200$ Special meeting of shareholders will vote on the proposed buyout agreement. Approval of the
transaction requires that two-thirds of the votes be in favor.
)ootnotes
1. BA Media Access Pro, unpublished data
2. Yahoo Finance, http://finance.yahoo.com
3. Sarah McBride and Dennis . Berman, Wall Street Journal, Clear Channel's Founders Stand to Get Windfall,
October 30, 2006.
4. Frank Ahrens, Washington Post, Clear Channel Sale to End an Era, November 17, 2006.
5. David Hinckley, New York Daily News, Clear Channel Stills Voices in the Night, November 14, 2006 For full
memo, see SEC.gov Edgar site, November filings.
6. David Lieberman, $2.78 Deal Would Put Disney Radio Unit in Citadel's Hands, USA Today, February 7, 2006.
-. BAfn Media Access Pro, unpublished data.
%. bid.
'. Jeff Leeds, Air America, Home of Liberal Talk, Files for Bankruptcy Protection, New York Times, October 14,
2006.
10.Maria Aspan, Some Advertisers Shun Air America, a Lonely Voice from Talk Radio's Left, New York Times,
November 6, 2006.
11.Katy Bachman, Media Week, Air America Sold to SLG Radio, January 29, 2007.
*e$s Invest'ent
As in years past, the situation in traditional radio newsrooms appears to be one of consolidation. The great
majority of stations delivering news now do so through joint newsrooms, and the situation in those newsrooms
looks increasingly complicated.
The 2006 survey of radio news directors conducted by Bob Papper of Ball State University found that over 70% of
the news directors provide local news to their stations through a centralized newsroom. The average number of
stations that those centralized newsrooms serve is 3.3, according to Papper's study.
1
What's more, over a third of
news directors reported overseeing five or more stations.
%4'
Some observers worry that because the data come from a relatively small sample 209 radio news directors
representing 613 stations it is risky to draw year-to-year comparisons. But the study is the richest data source
the industry has to understand what is going on inside newsrooms, and the one most relied upon.
Those newsrooms are likely to be stretched even further as they begin to address the challenge from new media.
As technology evolves and the definition of radio broadens, traditional radio will have to embrace new platforms in
order to supply what its audience is demanding from other digital listening formats. The newsrooms will have to
begin producing for multiple platforms as well.
For Jeff Smulyan, Chairman & CEO of Emmis Communications, that means appealing to youth. n an interview
with Radio Business Report on the future of radio, Smulyan declared that young people are most concerned with
getting what they want when they want it. Our task in this business is to make sure we provide that. That will
mean we embrace other platforms in the process.
2
Others say the future of radio news must emphasize unique talk personalities and local content. Saga
Communications' president and CEO, Ed Christian, told Talkers Magazine that the radio industry had strayed from
its core product of localism. When we talk about localism now, it's a mile wide and an inch deep. We need to go a
mile wide and a mile deep. There are those opportunities in every market, he said.
3
Still others emphasize the
content. Lee Abrams, senior vice president of XM Satellite Radio said, Ultimately, whether it's AM, FM, satellite,
nternet or some new technology, the best content is going to win, assuming people have equal access
to the signals.
4
But it remains to be seen what the public considers to be quality content: whether it's a very expensive national
contract with Howard Stern or a rural station's local personality discussing the pros and cons of a new community
center.
A'ount of *e$s
Based on the most recent data from the 2006 RTNDA/Ball State survey, the average radio station in 2005
broadcast 37.1 minutes a day of locally produced news during the week, 2.3 minutes less than the previous year's
39.4 minutes.
5
Over half of that total (20.2 minutes) was broadcast during the morning commute hours, leaving the
rest of the day with a meager supply of radio news.
The declines in news minutes, though, were not the same across the various market sizes. n general, the smaller
the market, the more dedication to local news. Major markets (over 1 million potential listeners) cut their supply of
local news by over 50%, falling from 93.5 minutes in 2004 to just 42 minutes in 2005.
6
Large markets (250,000 to 1
million listeners) also reduced their local news, though by less, going from 52.1 minutes in 2004 to 41.5 minutes in
2005.
By contrast, small and medium markets provided more news to their stations than they had in past years. Small
markets (less than 50,000 listeners) increased local news by almost seven minutes in the average weekday to 42
minutes, more than the national average for radio stations.
7
Medium markets (50,000 to 250,000 listeners) also
upped their supply of local news, going from about 23 minutes in 2004 to 29 minutes in 2005.
As for the future, the majority of news directors (67%) said they expected to maintain the levels of news where it
was.
8
Just over a quarter (28%) said they planned to increase the supply. Only 1% said that they would reduce the
amount.
Those expectations are the opposite of the previous year's. Almost two-thirds (64%) of news directors in 2004
said that they would lower the amount of news they broadcast on their radio stations.
9
And indeed 2005 saw a
major decline, noted above, in the amount of news offered in major and large markets.
*e$sroo' SiIe
%50
The composition of newsrooms has certainly been changing over the years, as well. As noted earlier, the average
number of stations that a news director serves is 3.3, according to the RTNDA news director survey. That is down
slightly from the previous year's data, which reported 3.75 stations per average news director.
10
Also down, though, is the percent of news directors who oversee just one newsroom 17% in the 2006 report
compared to 27% in 2005.
11
f the survey is an indication of what to expect in the future, then it seems that radio news departments may have
reached a sticking point, at least temporarily. Of the news directors surveyed in 2005, about 78% said they would
keep their news staffs the same for the coming year. A much smaller number, 13%, planned to increase their
news staffs. These expectations were in line with what they reported of their news staff changes for 2005 77%
said that their staffs had remained the same, 16% reported that they had increased their staffs, and only 6%
reported that their staffs had been reduced.
12
a!io Salaries
Radio professionals continue to be low-paid, and the situation is not improving. Salaries in traditional radio
newsrooms as a whole dropped 4.4% from 2004 to 2005, according to the RTNDA/Ball State University annual
news director survey, a considerable decline considering the small up-tick of 3.2% in 2004.
13
Salary cuts hit news producers the hardest as their median salaries plummeted by nearly 50%, going from
$38,000 in 2004 to $20,500 in 2005.
14
News directors and news anchors both lost about 9% of their median
salaries from 2004 to 2005, with directors going from $33,000 to $30,000 and news anchors going from $26,000
to $23,500. Those drops, however, came after major salary increases from 2003 to 2004, namely a $13,000 jump
for news producers. As for radio news reporters, their median salaries showed a slight rise in 2005, increasing
$500 to $25,000. Sports anchors also saw a rise in median salary, going from $27,000 in 2004 to $32,500 in
2005.
The likely explanation for the dramatic fluctuations, especially with regard to news producers, is that there are
relatively few news producers at radio stations anymore, making any change look more dramatic. The sample
size for radio reporters and news directors is larger, making those more stable indicators of salary patterns.
%e!ian a!io *e$s Salary 0o'"arisons <ver Ti'e
1994 - 2005
%51
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey Where the Jobs Are, RTNDA Communicator, June 2006. Note:
Based on survey responses of news directors
Radio news salaries remain below those of television. Radio news directors make less than half of what their
television counterparts make: $30,000 versus $75,000, according to the RTNDA/Ball State survey.
15
The gap
between the two broadcast media grew in 2005 as the radio news directors' median salaries dropped $3,000,
while television news directors' median salaries rose by $2,000. Similarly, salaries for radio news anchors were
about half of their television counterparts: $23,500 compared to $58,500. That gap also grew from the previous
year. The difference in salaries between news reporters of the two media, however, is not as great $25,000 for
radio and $28,000 for television. Though radio news producers once stood out above their counterparts in
television, that trend reversed in 2005, giving television news producers almost $9,000 more in earning power.
%e!ian Salaries1 a!io vs. Television
Survey of news directors, 2005
%52
Source: 2006 RTNDA/Ball State Newsroom Survey
Note: Based on survey responses of news directors
Design Your Own Chart
As newsrooms move to
a business model that
serves not one but
several stations, are
they able to offer their
staffs more enticing
salaries? Survey
responses in the
RTNDA study are
inconclusive. While
there are certainly
fewer newsrooms
serving only one
station, it does not
appear that salaries
have increased much
despite the added
responsibility of serving
more stations. Except
for a dip in salaries in
newsrooms that serve 2
to 3 stations, news
directors maintain
consistent salaries
regardless of the
number of stations they
serve. Reporters, on
the other hand, must
serve at least four
stations before they
earn more than
$20,000.
a!io Salaries.
by *u'ber of
Stations Serve!
Survey of news
directors, 2005
%53
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey Where the Jobs Are, RTNDA Communicator, June 2006. Note:
Based on survey responses of news directors.
As far as the size of the newsroom goes, significant salary jumps occurred for news directors, anchors and
reporters in larger newsrooms, those with five or more full-time staff members. For anchors and reporters, this is
probably because these positions don't exist in the smallest of newsrooms. Salaries for news producers, on the
other hand, stayed pretty much the same regardless of the size of the newsroom.
a!io Salaries. by )ull4ti'e Staff SiIe
Survey of news directors, 2005
%54
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey Where the Jobs Are, RTNDA Communicator, June 2006. Note:
Based on survey responses of news directors.
Comparing newsroom salaries according to the ownership structure of stations shows a couple of contrasting
patterns. News anchors and news producers at independent stations received higher median salaries than at
group-owned stations. But compared to the previous year, overall salaries for radio staff at independently owned
stations suffered more in 2005 than for their counterparts at group-owned stations. The one exception to that
trend was that the median salary of news producers at independently owned newsrooms outpaced that of
producers at group-owned newsrooms, a reversal of the situation in the previous year.
/ublic a!io
Public radio, led by NPR, has been making new strides in the newsroom to deliver public radio to more ears, and
eyes via the Web. The year 2006 marked a major initiative by NPR to understand how it could help public radio
stations strengthen their relationships with their listeners. The initiative was called New Realities and sent NPR
staff members across the country early in the year to talk to hundreds of station leaders about the future of public
radio. The discussions resulted in the Blueprint for Growth, released in July. Among other things, the blueprint
stresses the need to encourage listener participation and create more of a conversation between NPR, its
audience and its member stations. Online, NPR plans to combine this new, expanded content with its older
material to build what they call an open archive.
16
n July Bill Marimow, then vice president of NPR's news division, told Current magazine that The goal in the long
term is to make sure that everything we produce for broadcast has an online, podcast, cellular phone component
to it. That's a long ways away, but we're moving in that direction.
17
Besides the digital push that NPR is forging, public radio broadcasters are also looking for ways to draw in
younger audiences. One of the new programs that NPR tested in 2006 was a two-hour morning newsmagazine
aimed at listeners aged 25 to 44. The program borrows news topics from Morning Edition and All Things
Considered, but makes them lighter and more relevant to relatively young audiences by featuring feedback from
that age range and a more casual reporting style. The program is being promoted on podcasts, Web streams and
HD radio multicast channels.
*e$ Au!io Invest'ents
%55
One of the latest threats to traditional radio is an auxiliary jack that is being included in new cars. The <A,=>
option can be used to plug any portable audio device into the car's stereo system, (including a guitar, as seen in
the Volkswagen commercials with the Guns'n'Roses guitar legend Slash, and another with John Mayer, rocking
out through car speakers). More commonly, consumers will be plugging in their iPods, Zunes (a new Microsoft
digital media player released in November) or other MP3 players. Though industry fears are high, it's uncertain
whether the new device will affect traditional radio listening any more than the introduction of cassette players and
6-disc CD changers in cars. The only difference is that the stack of audio options is growing. And it certainly won't
stop with the AUX plug. Some automobile manufacturers are more seamlessly embracing the iPod into their audio
features by eliminating the need to even touch the actual MP3 player, enabling the car's stereo functions to
control the song selection. And still other cars, like some Volvo and Mercedes-Benz models , are being outfitted
with USB ports and hard drives. Next up? Wireless cars.
18
The iPod is seen by many analysts as a greater threat to traditional radio than satellite radio. Steve Jobs, CEO of
Apple, has predicted that 70% of new cars sold in the U .S . by the end of 2007 will offer iPod connections as an
option.
19
That is particularly threatening because the car is typically seen as the primary domain for radio listening,
especially during the morning and evening commute hours when advertising rates are highest. Also, six major
airlines agreed in November 2006 to program their in-flight entertainment systems to accommodate iPods
beginning in mid-2007.
Radio is teaming up with mobile marketers to turn radio advertising campaigns into an interactive experience
through a listener's cell phone. Katz Radio partnered with the mobile marketing firm HipCricket, to announce the
launch of a mobile messaging and advertising service called Katz Mobile on October 11.
20
The service uniquely lets
radio listeners receive consumer coupons through their cell phones in response to advertising and promotions that
they hear on the radio. Katz Radio's president, Mark Gray, said individual stations or advertisers could choose to
offer interactive features like quizzes or polls to increase interest and activity , and , of course, to increase
advertising revenue. Clear Channel, ABC Radio, Fox Sports Radio, Cox Radio, Premiere Radio Networks and
Westwood One have been using similar HipCricket services.
a!io *e$sroo' Diversity
Radio newsrooms, long disproportionately male and Caucasian, are becoming more so, according to the latest
data.
The RTNDA/Ball State University annual survey of newsrooms found the percentage of minorities in the radio
newsroom fell to 6.4% in 2005, the latest year available, its lowest level since the survey began.
21
A year earlier the
number was 8%, which in turn was down from 11.8% in 2003.
The majority of the decline from 2004 to 2005 came from declining numbers of Hispanics (down to 1.9% from 6%)
in the radio newsrooms. The numbers of blacks (up to 2.5% from .7%) and Asian-Americans (up to 1.8% from .
7%), however, actually climbed a bit.
22
The top positions in radio newsrooms are even more homogenous. Almost 96% of radio news directors are
Caucasian, as are almost 98% of radio general managers.
23
Looked at another way, only 12.4% of all radio newsrooms in 2005 even had minorities on staff.
24
The number fell
almost 5% from the year before. On a positive note, minorities in major and large markets fared better, with
minorities making up 46.7% and 21.1% of those news staffs, respectively.
The situation for women is better than that for minorities, but a far cry from equilibrium. Women made up just shy of
25% of the workforce in radio newsrooms in 2005, which is fairly consistent with years past.
25
But just over half
(52.7%) of radio newsrooms across the country operate without any women on their staffs. Approximately one out
of five news directors (20.4%) were women in 2005, down about 4% from the previous year (24.7%). There is no
clear pattern regarding the size of markets in which women are more likely to be included or to hold top positions.
)ootnotes
%56
1. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, News, Staffing and Profitability, The
Communicator, October 2006. Survey responses came from 209 radio news directors and general managers
representing 613 radio stations.
2. Radio Business Report, October 16, 2006.
3. Kevin Casey, Talkers Magazine, The Future of the Stick, November, 2006.
4. bid.
5. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, News, Staffing and Profitability,
RTNDA Communicator, October 2006.
6. bid.
-. bid.
%. bid.
'. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, News, Staffing and Profitability
Survey, RTNDA Communicator, October 2005.
10. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, News, Staffing and
Profitability Survey, RTNDA Communicator, October 2006.
11.bid.
12. bid.
13. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey Where the Jobs Are,
RTNDA Communicator, June 2006.
14. bid.
15. bid.
16. A Blueprint for Growth: Moving from Current Realities to New Realities, NPR. Available online
at http://www.current.org/pbpb/npr/NPRBlueprintForGrowthJuly06.pdf
1-. Mike Janssen and Steve Behrens, Current magazine, NPR working with stations 'can be much,
much stronger, ' July 17, 2006.
1%. Joseph B. White, Wall Street Journal, Car Audio Faces the Music, October 9, 2006.
1'. Radio Business Report, Assessing the iPod threat, October 6, 2006.
20. Erik Sass, Online Media Daily, Katz Radio Launches Mobile Ad Services, October 13, 2006.
21. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual Survey, Year of Extremes, RTNDA
Communicator, July/August 2006.
22. bid.
23. bid.
%5-
24.bid
25.bid
Digital
By the Project for Excellence in Journalism
As radio's future for growth gains new potential, so have the possibilities for the medium online.
That is something of a turnaround. nitially, the Web was primarily text-oriented. Audio online seemed less intuitive
to Web users. Traffic for early nternet radio was not impressive. And radio Web sites overall have tended to lag
behind others in content.
That seems to have changed with the growing popularity of MP3 players and other mobile delivery systems, the
majority of which are audio-based.
a!io Invest'ent <nline
As with businesses of almost any sort these days, the vast majority of traditional radio stations have Web sites.
According to the 2006 RTNDA/Ball State University Annual Survey of news directors, 87% of all radio stations had
their own Web sites by the end of 2005.
1
ndependently owned stations and those with small staffs were less likely
to have them.
The development of the sites is less impressive. The average number of full-time employees devoted to Web site
content is a relatively meager 1.1, according to the RTNDA survey. Stations in the largest markets tended to
devote more 2.2 full-time employees versus .8 in small markets and the smallest-market stations were more
likely to have people devoted only part time to the Web product.
2
News directors at small stations reported, on
average, that more than three-quarters (76%) of their staffs share responsibilities between the broadcast and
online content. That was true of just 17% of stations in major markets.
The cautious approach to the Web may be at least partly linked to the limited return on investment radio stations
are seeing there. According to the RTNDA survey, station news directors were more than twice as likely to report
their Web sites losing money than making any 10.5% versus 4.2%.
3
Another 20% reported breaking even.
(Most, 65%, didn't actually know whether their station sites were financially successful or not).
Could added investment make the sites more appealing to audiences and thereby to advertisers? Or would
increased resources go unappreciated, leaving stations in worse financial shape than before? t's something of a
chicken-and-egg problem, with little resolution in an industry in transition on the question of which online
investment or online revenue must come first.
Digital 0ontent
And what of the content on these sites? The evidence suggests that radio Web sites differ widely in how much
they offer and the regularity with which they update news content. Even their greatest asset local news is
not uniformly present on the sites.
The RTNDA survey found that as of 2005 only 70% of radio Web sites provided local news, down from 77% of
those surveyed the previous year.
4
That was true even though in public opinion surveys, Web users continuously
report turning primarily to radio Web sites for local news.
5
To get a closer look at the specific features of different news Web sites, the Project conducted a detailed site
study of 38 news Web sites rooted in the various media platforms, from newspapers to cable TV to Web only site.
%5%
We looked at the kind of content they offer, the technology levels employed, the relationship with users and the
economic structure. The overall findings across the 38 sites (as well as an interactive tool to help citizens evaluate
their favorite news sites) can be found in the Digital 5ournalis' cha"ter.
For the radio component of the analysis, we looked at the Web sites of NPR, as a national distributor of content to
public radio stations, and WTOP, as a Washington-based local news radio station. Both are among the strongest
operations in news radio and are likely to represent the high end of what the industry is offering.
Both were among the more sophisticated news sites studied and had moved to providing more online than they
could in their original medium.
*ational /ublic a!io =$$$.n"r.org>
NPR.org is becoming something of an identity unto itself, a destination offering substantially more than just radio
programs moved online. The site leads with a top story usually presented as a package with multiple links and
multimedia components. That is followed by a list of other top news stories, which, once accessed, are offered as
both audio and text.
Below the top stories comes a mix of news content, including a list of top e-mailed stories (updated
continuously), a sidebar of news topics for further reading/listening, and Associated Press headlines.
Amid all this content is a clear sense of the NPR bran!a clear emphasis of this site, and a category where it got
some of its highest marks. The vast majority of stories posted on the site are researched and written by NPR's
staff, something it accentuates by offering bylines to most stories as well as links to the author's biography. n
addition to the NPR content, the site augments its stories with a limited selection from the A.P.
The other area where NPR.org excels is in allowing users to custo'iIe the NPR content to their own interests or
needs. Both RSS feeds (really simple syndication) and podcasts are prominent features, situated in the upper
left-hand column of the homepage. The RSS link takes users to a page where they can choose to receive
particular categories of news feeds (e.g., opinion), specific programs (e.g., Morning Edition), topics (e.g.,
children's health), or particular member-station feeds (e.g., KQED in San Francisco). All in all, there are 52
categorical RSS feeds and 19 member station feeds. Another feature extensively employed on the NPR site is
podcasts. The podcast link from the homepage takes the user to an extensive directory of podcasts organized by
this week's picks, topic, title and by station provider. As of February of 2007, though, the site had yet to embrace
the latest trend of mobile phone delivery.
NPR.org was in the mid-level range when it came to use of 'ulti'e!ia forms. Audio features were prominent,
with some live streaming options, podcasts and other MP3 downloads. These are supplements, though, to the
more common text and photo elements on the home page. And, the site did not offer video content.
Clicking further inside the site, however, reveals more of a multimedia feel. Once users click on a story headline
from the main page, they are taken to the transcript of the story (or a synopsis) and are then presented with the
choice to read or listen to the story. ndeed, NPR.org stands out in offering about 85% of its content
simultaneously as textual narrative and audio streams or podcasts.
A big question facing all online entities is one of econo'ics. NPR.org hosted only two advertisements on its
home page, one self-promotional, the other a PBS logo. Still, it does find a way to draw in some revenue. The site
charges users for some archive material: $3.95 for a single archived transcript, or $12.95 for a monthly
subscription to the archive (up to 10 transcripts).
WT</ a!io =$$$.$to".co'>
Washington-based WTOP represents an entirely different look at radio online, one which is simultaneously local
and national in scope. The homepage features an obvious lead story; an invitation to visitors to listen to WTOP
radio news; weather and traffic information for the day; and a prominently featured local news section.
Advertisements also have a heavy presence.
%5'
WTOP.com ranks in the top tier for offering custo'iIable options. Users can subscribe to both RSS feeds and
podcasts, and its RSS feeds are relatively varied (totaling 12 different feeds, all of which are different categories of
news). WTOP also goes further than NPR in providing on-demand listening options: visitors can sign up for
content delivery (headlines, weather, traffic and breaking news) to their mobile phones.
WTOP.com is still largely about narrative text (it makes up close to three-quarters of the content with still photos
the second-most common form). Still, it did make some effort at 'ulti'e!ia forms (falling in the mid-level range of
all sites studied) with some presence of video stories, slideshows, interactive graphics and yes, live streaming
audio. &istening makes up only a small though prominent part of the Web site's homepage with a section called
Audio Center that is devoted to live streaming of the WTOP radio station content.
The site puts less emphasis on its own original bran!e! content, relying mostly on the A.P. The heavy use on
wires reflects the larger reality of radio today even in Washington, D.C., national and international news comes
heavily from sources other than the station itself. And even for local stories, only some had WTOP staff bylines;
most came from the A.P., along with a few contributions from the Washington Post.
Economically, WTOP seems to emphasize revenue strea's from its Web site, as opposed to simply leaning on
its radio station for cash-flow. t averaged close to 20 different ads on its home page, only one of which was self-
promotional. Ad eyeballs, it seems, are the way users pay for use of the site. All the content is free and there no
registration is necessary.
<ther a!io Web Sites
To broaden our understanding of radio-based Web sites, we conducted a quick study of five other online radio
offerings to compare with NPR and WTOP.
a!io site co'"arisons
0all
letters
*/ WT</ CABW WA<C W5I% CTH C*US
City N/A Washington
, D.C.
San
Francisco,
Calif.
Atlant
a, Ga.
Lansin
g,
Mich.
Houston
, Texas
Denver
, Colo.
Owner NPR Bonneville SF Unified
School
District
CBS Citadel Clear
Chann
el
Salem
Website npr.org wtop.com kalw.org m m ktrh.com m
RSS Y Y N N N N N
RSS
choice
Y Y N N N N N
Podcasts Y Y N Y N Y N
Mobile
deliver
y
N Y N N N N N
User
conten
t
Y N N N N N N
Multimedia High High Low Mid+ Low Mid+ Low
*video N Y N Y N Y N
*live
stream
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
*other Y Y N N Y N Y
Story
sourc
e
self,
AP
self, AP,
Wash Post
self, NPR,
BBC, other
CBS, AP,
AJ-C
ABC, wire AP,
WSJ,
other
AP
%60
Pay
for
conten
some N N N N N N
Total ads 2 36 6 11 0 20 9
Local
sectio
n
N/A N N Y Y N N
Source: PEJ Research
The main finding in this abbreviated site comparison is that NPR and WTOP are unusually advanced in their
online presence. Only two of the five other radio Web sites (WAOK in Atlanta and KTRH in Houston) offered
podcasts, and none stressed their news content enough to provide an RSS service to their Web visitors. Those
two sites were also the only ones to provide news in the form of video. That gave them a medium score on the
multimedia question. Despite being fairly low-tech Web sites, all provided a live streaming connection to actual
radio content from the station. Beyond that, the five sites differed quite a bit in their content.
20061 A "ush for !igital contentJ
Heading into 2007, stations may also feel more drive to develop other digital components, such as nternet
listening, podcasting, satellite radio, HD radio, and content delivered to cell phones and PDA devices.
The advantages of those new listening options vary, but in general they all include expanded listening choices,
customizability and portability. Ray Davis, program director for WTAM in Cleveland, told Talkers magazine, a
journal about talk radio, that his goal was to provide more on-demand products through the Web site so he could
complement the radio station and increase revenue. The talk host Chris Core also noted the increasing number of
downloads of his show. He added that hope my union (AFTRA) changes its Stone Age policy of not allowing
commercials to be played over the nternet. We are wasting a huge potential source of money and ratings.
6
Clear Channel the largest radio organization, still owning nearly 1,200 stations (with a fairly big selloff in the
offing) has been making a big push online. Evan Harrison, executive vice president of Clear Channel and head
of the online music and radio division, told Talkers magazine that his company has equipped upward of 600
stations' Web sites with the capacity to stream content live. He added that Clear Channel had seen a growth in
online radio streaming of 50% from 2005 to 2006. Through the use of on-demand sound (podcasts) and the
application of a video component to the standard audio content of radio, Harrison says that Clear Channel is really
focusing on getting creative to devise new revenue streams. He also says that 14,000 of its traditional advertisers
have already signed up to reach Clear Channel's online consumers as well.
7
Satellite a!io <nline
Satellite radio, already an alternative to traditional radio listening, is also expanding its options by pushing its
product online.
Sirius Satellite Radio offers an online service that includes nternet access to live streams of all its music stations,
and a limited selection of its news, talk, sports and entertainment channels, about 15 channels. But the service
does not come free. Non-subscribers must pay the standard $12.95 a month that regular subscribers pay.
Regular satellite subscribers, however, automatically receive access to the online version. They can also add
nternet-only subscriptions to the account for an additional $6.99 a month. Online users can also opt to pay for
improved CD-quality audio.
8
XM Radio also provides an nternet version of its product. Like Sirius, XM offers only a modified list of its 170
channels online, including about seven non-music channels. XM is marketing its online product as a unique
alternative to its satellite line-up, by offering several online-only channels. The cost for non-subscribers to XM's
regular service is $7.99 a month. The cost to current subscribers is uncertain; the Web site informs its customers
that f you already subscribe to XM or are taking an XM trial in your new car, you may be eligible for XM Radio
Online, at no additional charge. t is unclear what the stipulations are.
9
%61
0onclusion
Overall, radio has been slower than other media to incorporate new listening formats into its traditional format.
That could stem from a perception that online listening and podcasting are direct competitors to traditional radio
listening. But such an argument hasn't stopped newspapers, which also compete directly with their own online
product, from being leaders in developing sophisticated online products.
Regardless of the reason that radio has been slower to develop online, the imperative exists, and news and
program directors are beginning to realize it. Though traditional radio looks to remain a part of people's lives for
the foreseeable future, the digital era is certainly upon us. As audience numbers for broadband nternet, podcasts
and satellite radio grow, people are getting more and more accustomed to the ease and choice offered by the new
digital devices. To compete, traditional radio, likely through HD Radio and nternet radio, will have to offer the
same portability, customizability and choice that the new audio options provide.
)ootnotes
1. Bob Papper, RTNDA/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, TV Web Sites Helping the Bottom
Line, RTNDA Communicator, May 2006.
Note: Survey was conducted in the fourth quarter of 2005. Results are based on 139 radio news directors and
general managers representing 450 stations.
2. bid.
3. bid.
4. bid.
5. bid. Note: Weather is ranked fourth, traffic 14 th and local sports 8th.
6. Alan Linder, Talkers magazine, The Talk Media ndustry Looks Ahead to 2007, December 2006/January 2007
-. Kevin Casey, Talkers magazine, Clear Channel's Online Content Battle Plan, December 2006/January 2007
%. http://www.sirius.com
'. http://www.xmradio.com
/ublic Attitu!es
The public's relationship with radio has moved a fair distance since the medium's debut in the 1920's. Gone are the
days when it was a stationary sound box that the family gathered around. Today, radio is a portable audio device
that may carry music or news from a variety of different sources, not bound to broadcasting a traditional AM or FM
signal.
Yet even though the traditional AM/FM dial has lost some of its clout and audience, the quick embrace of portable
audio platforms signals the enduring appeal of the power of listening its intimacy, mobility and adaptability to
different styles of content.
According to the 2006 Pew People and the Press biennial news consumption survey, people turn to radio
primarily for information. Three quarters of radio listeners cited that as a reason, just as respondents did for
newspapers, nternet and television. But radio was also rated highly more than any other medium as a place
to pass the time.
1
That seems to reflect another quality that is vital to radio's appeal: people can do other things
while listening, whether driving, walking, cooking, or surfing the nternet.
%62
What type of news do people look to radio for? The data suggest that it's a medium with no particular specialty. Of
the nine types of news that Pew surveyed in 2006, radio was not a top-three preference for any. t fared the best
for political news, but even there came in fourth of seven information media at 5%, ahead of only magazines,
talking with people and other.
2
Radio seems a medium for general information and for talk, a jack of all subjects.
*e$s %e!ia That /eo"le Turn To
2006
[] Major Source of Mews
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press biennial consumption survey, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper
Readership, July 30, 2006.
Measuring a different way, a survey by the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation found that local radio
news programs came in fourth on a list of seven news sources, ordered by the percentage of people who identify
their major source of news.
3
%ost /o"ular *e$s Destinations
2002
*e$s Source /ercentage of /eo"le
%63
Bocal T+ *e$s 23.3%
Bocal *e$s"a"er 2;.:%
*ational *et$or( T+ *e$s 2;.7%
Bocal a!io *e$s /rogra's 8:.6%
Internet 88.2%
*ational *e$s"a"er 7.;%
So'e"lace -lse 8.7%
Source: Bob Papper, RTNDf/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, Future of News Survey, October 2006 Note:
Percentage of respondents citing the news source as their major source of news
One measure of the public's attitudes is the level of trust in certain news outlets. Such numbers are not as readily
supplied for radio as for other media. National Public Radio is the only radio outlet about which the Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press survey asks respondents to rate believability. Compared with many outlets,
NPR ranks pretty well on the believability scale. Since 1998, NPR's believability among the public has been
growing, albeit slightly, while other major news sources' rankings have been sinking. What was once a 24-
percentage-point spread between top-ranked CNN and NPR has now closed to eight percentage points, though
CNN still leads.
4
*e$s Source Believability
1998 - 2006
Dear
iYB Newspaper
HAP
["] Local TV
[J NPR
Design Your Own
Chart Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press biennial consumption survey, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper
Readership, July 30, 2006.
Compared with other information sources, the public also views local radio newscasts as newslike. n a survey
by Bob Papper and the RTNDF, respondents were asked to score 13 media programs based on a 1-5 scale of
how newslike they were. Local radio newscasts came in fourth (4.0 on the scale), after local TV news, cable
newscasts, and network evening newscasts, each at 4.4. Talk radio programs like Rush Limbaugh and Al
Franken scored ninth (2.4), just above Entertainment Tonight and the Daily Show (tenth and eleventh,
respectively, with scores of 2.3 and 2.1).
5
%64
Media consumption choices are also influenced by a person's overall interest in the news. The vast majority of
people who enjoy the news a lot (52% of the population) turn to newspapers for their regular news diet (66%).
6
Rush Limbaugh's talk radio show regularly attracts only 6% of such news junkies. Radio over all has a similar
problem. n general, radio (whether NPR, religious radio or Rush Limbaugh) is the least likely to attract the
attention of those who enjoy the news a lot. Even NPR only regularly attracts 23% of that category of people.
%e!ia That *e$s 5un(ies Turn To
2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press biennial consumption survey, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper
Readership, July 30, 2006.
Political news junkies show a similar trend, seeking out their political news from newspapers. Slightly more than a
quarter of such people, 28%, say they are regular listeners to NPR. Ten percent of them listen to Rush
Limbaugh.
7
%65
%e!ia That /eo"le Turn To )or /olitical *e$s
2006
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press biennial consumption survey, Online Papers Modestly Boost Newspaper
Readership, July 30, 2006.
)ootnotes
1. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press biennial media consumption survey, Online Papers
Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July 30, 2006.
2. bid.
3. Bob Papper, RTNDF/Ball State University Annual News Director Survey, Future of News Survey
4. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, News nterest and Believability ndex, June, 2006.
5. Bob Papper, RTNDF/Ball State University, Future of News Survey, October 2006.
6. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press biennial news consumption survey, Online Papers
Modestly Boost Newspaper Readership, July 30, 2006.
%66
7. bid
Tal( a!io
The modern era in talk radio effectively began with the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of the
Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
Under the doctrine, all sides of controversial and political questions had to be given equal representation on the
airwaves. The result up to that point was that radio talk programs consisted primarily of general (non-political) talk
and advice. The big names were people like Michael Jackson in Los Angeles, whose program included interviews
with celebrities, authors, and civic leaders.
With the doctrine's repeal, radio shows could become more one-sided, more freewheeling, ideological, and
political. And it didn't take long. One of the first to gain popularity under the new rules was a new voice out of
California named Rush Limbaugh. Within a year or two of the new rules, Limbaugh's provocative denunciations of
Democrats became a phenomenon. Stations quickly began to pick up his syndicated show, and other
conservative names followed his lead. Being controversial seemed a plus. Among the imitators were G. Gordon
Liddy, convicted in the Watergate scandal, and Ollie North, implicated in ran Contra.
That popularity is clear enough in the numbers. n the wake of the regulatory change, the number of stations
carrying the talk format swelled from about 400 nationwide in 1990 to some 1,400 in 2006, according to nside
Radio, a growth of almost 250%.
1
n the last five years (2001-2006), the growth rate has been a respectable 23%. But much of the explosive growth
happened early on.
*e$sA Tal( a!io #ro$th
1990 - 2006
3 600
40
0
20
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2001 2003
Year
| ] Audience
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006 Note: No figures available for
2000
%6-
Talk radio runs the gamut of topics. But it remains most associated with conservative talk though even that
may be misleading. Talkers magazine, the leading talk radio publication, examines nine separate categories of
the format in which general issues/political talk leads as the most-programmed talk style. Sports talk is second,
followed by hot talk or shock jocks like Howard Stern. n order, the remaining six talk forms are: popular culture
talk (lifestyle, entertainment), financial talk (business, finance, real estate), home talk (home maintenance and
improvement, gardening), health talk (diet and fitness), psychology/relationship talk (emotional/mental health
issues, romance, family), and specialty talk (computers, automotive).
0onservative /ersonalities Do'inate
Personality, not just ideology, is a defining quality of the most popular talk programs, and here the first of the new
age of talkers remains the most popular of all. Rush Limbaugh. whose career began in 1984, remains the No. 1
talk show host on traditional radio with 13.5 million listeners as of the spring of 2006, according to Talkers
magazine.
2
He was once far ahead of his competition, but some of Limbaugh's fellow conservative talkers are catching up.
According to the Talkers estimates, Sean Hannity has 12.5 million listeners followed by Michael Savage with 8.25
million, Laura ngraham with 5 million, Neal Boortz and Mike Gallagher each with 3.75 million, and Bill O'Reilly
with 3.25 million.
Tal( a!io Au!ience
2007 an! 2002
To" Tal( /ersonalities I!eology
2002
=Au!ience in
'illions>
2007
=Au!ience in
'illions>
Rush Limbaugh conservative 13.5 14.5
Sean Hannity conservative 12.5 11.75
Michael Savage conservative 8.25 7
Dr. Laura Schlessinger general 8 8.5
Laura ngraham conservative 5 1.25
JNeal Boortz conservative 3.75 2.5
Mike Gallagher conservative 3.75 2.5
Jim Bohannon independent/moderate 3.25 4
Clark Howard non-political 3.25 2.5
Bill O'Reilly conservative 3.25 1.75
Doug Stephen independent/moderate 3.25 2
Source: Talkers magazine, Top Talk Personalities, Spring 2006
Liberal talk radio personalities fall much further down the list, according to Talkers' estimates. Ed Schultz ranks first
at 2.25 million listeners; the comedian Al Franken is second at 1.5 million, followed by Randi Rhodes and Alan
Colmes at 1.25 million listeners each. (Franken announced in early 2007 that his last show would air on February
14. He is said to be considering a run for the U.S. Senate.)
s the audience for talk still growing? Some data would suggest it is. According to the Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press, the number of regular listeners to talk radio grew to 20% of adult Americans in April 2006,
up from 17% two years previously. Except for months leading up to an election, that number has been on the rise,
and was as low as 13% ten years ago.
Survey data would also suggest the audience for Limbaugh in particular has dropped from the mid-1990s, but is
stable today. n 1994, according to research from Pew, 6% of Americans said they listened to Limbaugh regularly,
%6%
and 20% said they listened sometimes. n the most recent survey, 2006, Pew found that 5% of the public listens
to Limbaugh regularly, a figure that has remained steady over the past 12 years, but occasional listeners dropped
to 11% in 1996 and has basically stayed there in the 10 years since.
3
Who Bistens to Tal(
Talk radio also attracts a different audience, even from more conventional news and information on radio. The talk
radio audience is younger than the more inclusive news/talk/information format. More than a third (36%) are
between 25 and 44 years old, compared with 23% in the broader news/talk/information grouping. According to
Arbitron, talk personality stations tend to attract a younger audience by distinguishing themselves with edgier
programming.
4
Bisteners To *e$s an! Tal( /ersonality
2005, by Age
Design Your Own Chart
Source: Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006
Other characteristics of the talk radio audience, according to the Talkers magazine's Talk Radio Research Project
released in the fall of 2006, are that listeners tend to be male (55%) and white (65%). n addition, 65% of the
audience report household incomes between $30,000 and $70,000.
5
The audience is also distinctly conservative, but not necessarily Republican. Talkers magazine data put the party
breakdown at 23% Republican, 14% Democratic, and a majority, 57%, ndependent. The Pew Research Center
for the People and the Press finds a more equal spread among regular listeners to political talk radio: 32%
Republican, 35% Democratic and 30% ndependent.
How do such listeners see themselves? When asked to describe their own political philosophy, Talkers found that
38% said conservative, 14% liberal and 41% moderate. The Pew Research data put the breakdown for regular
listeners at 43% conservative, 23% liberal and 30% moderate. While that audience is conservative, it should be
noted that the general public also identifies itself more that way. The Pew Research Center finds that the
ideological breakdown for the general public is 36% conservative, 21% liberal and 35% moderate.
Whatever their politics, talk radio's listeners can be activists with an impact. A campaign led by the blogger
Spocko in 2006 was designed to get advertisers to boycott the San Francisco talk radio station KSFO-AM for
what were deemed racially, religiously and violently offensive commentary by four KSFO radio hosts. According to
the San Francisco Chronicle, three large advertisers responded to the campaign by removing their ads.
%6'
Ho$ar! Stern an! the Satellite 0hallenge
One other powerful talk personality who has commanded much media attention is the shock jock Howard Stern,
most recently for his move from CBS Radio to satellite's Sirius Radio. n 2003, his radio audience stood at about
8.5 million listeners, which placed him third on Talkers magazine's list of top talk personalities. Since his move to
Sirius at the beginning of 2006, it is more difficult to quantify his audience. Sirius ended 2006 with just over 6
million subscribers, an 82% increase over its close-of-year 2005 figure of 3.3 million.
6
While Stern's move to Sirius
may have contributed to the growth, there is no way to measure the extent to which he was responsible for the
subscription gains.
But Sirius certainly gave him some credit. n October of 2004, at the time of Stern's signing, Sirius made an
agreement that if the subscription base exceeded 3.5 million by the end of 2006, he would receive a stock-based
performance bonus. n early January, Stern received that bonus in the form of more than 22 million shares of
Sirius stock, valued at about $83 million.
7
Big-name talk personalities are becoming increasingly popular on satellite radio, which at the end of 2006 had a
combined subscriber base of 13.6 million (of which XM Radio reported 7.6 million subscribers and Sirius 6 million.
See Audience). Both satellite companies capitalize on their extensive selection of commercial-free music
channels, while also offering an ever-growing selection of news, sports and entertainment programming with
limited commercials.
8
Besides Stern, Sirius boasts unique programming from Martha Stewart, the comedian Raw
Dog, Playboy Radio, Court TV Radio and such syndicated political talk personalities as Michael Reagan, G.
Gordon Liddy, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller. XM boasts unique talent from Oprah Winfrey and Friends, Ellen
DeGeneres, Tyra Banks, Opie & Anthony and Bob Edwards, as well as syndicated talkers from conventional
radio, Laura ngraham, Glenn Beck, Bob Costas and Air America.
Biberal Tal(1 A )uture or a )ailureJ
Talk radio hosts are overwhelmingly political, and overwhelmingly conservative in their ideology, according to talk
personality listenership numbers. n fact, of the 40 talkers that made it on the Talkers magazine list of top hosts,
only six were liberal (Ed Schultz, Al Franken, Alan Colmes, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller and Lionel).
9
n an effort to alter those numbers, Air America, amid much fanfare, hit the airwaves in the spring of 2004 with a
liberal lineup highlighted by Al Franken and the comedian and actress Janeane Garofalo. Compared with other
popular talk programming, however, the network never garnered much of an audience: it reported in late 2006
that its programming reached about 2.4 million listeners weekly.
10
Though it got off the ground with significant financial backing, the network stumbled through two and a half years
before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2006. Despite its financial problems, Air America has remained
on the air and has retained most of its affiliate stations, though several opted out of their contracts. Recent news
reports say there is a preliminary agreement to sell Air America to the New York real estate executive Stephen
Green.
Tom Taylor, editor of nside Radio, says the network was too concerned with being the antidote to Rush Limbaugh
rather than providing great entertainment and making great radio. The advantage of Rush Limbaugh, according to
the radio consultant Walter Sabo, is that he's a great broadcaster, not a great conservative. On the other hand,
none of Air America's talk talent, aside from Randi Rhodes, had any previous experience in radio.
Another possible explanation for the lackluster reception for liberal talk radio, some analysts say, is that its
conservative competition is inherently more entertaining. As Tom Taylor suggested, conservative bumper sticker
language is easier to talk about and easier to understand conservatives stand for cutting taxes and supporting
the troops. The progressive stances don't seem to come in such neat packages it's more complicated than, for
instance, raising taxes or not supporting the troops.
Others argue that the conservative talk movement is only a response to the rest of the mainstream media, which
many conservatives believe is predominantly liberal. t has been an argument for years among some
conservatives that NPR is the liberal voice of radio, a claim NPR would dispute. Regardless, it seems too early to
%-0
tell whether the financial ills and relatively low audience numbers for Air America spell doom for a liberal talk
genre.
There seems to be at least one rising liberal talk star, Ed Schultz, the most popular talk radio host of his
persuasion on the air with 2.25 million listeners.
11
His show, The Ed Schultz Show, began broadcasting in January
2004 and airs from Fargo, N.D. n its brief existence, the show is already syndicated to over 100 stations, including
9 of the 10 largest markets, and Sirius Satellite Radio.
The )uture of Tal( a!io
The proliferation of new media outlets does have some in the radio industry worried about the future of talk. Ed
Christian, president and CEO of Saga Communications, takes a proprietary stance on the idea of sharing
traditional radio content with new competitors like satellite radio or the nternet. n an interview with Talkers
magazine, he said that the two things that distinguish our medium [traditional radio] from any other are localism
and exclusive content. believe in not sharing that content with anyone else. Based on that principle, Christian
removed Sean Hannity from the programming schedule at WNA in Charlottesville, VA when the popular radio
personality started syndicating on satellite radio. n Hannity's place, Christian put on a live, local talkshow which he
said has been very successful in whipping our former program.
12
Underscoring the need for unique programming, Talkers magazine's publisher, Michael Harrison, wrote that the
survival of terrestrial radio.boils down to one thing and one thing only: they must program exclusive content
unavailable on any other medium.
13
n such an environment, radio owners and program directors are predicting that investing more in local talk talent
may be the key to continued survival. But at least some industry players and observers predict that recruiting the
talent may not be easy. Because of the ease, financial efficiency and popularity of programming nationally
syndicated shows, they say stations find it costly and difficult to cultivate good local talk hosts who can attract a
large audience.
Scott Fybush of nside Radio warns that The problem with staffing local talk talent is that it costs money, and talent
is hard to find.
Another potentially important issue for talk radio is the changing political landscape. n light of the 2006 midterm
elections, there has been much speculation about how the Democratic Congressional win will affect talk radio
with no clear consensus emerging.
Most conservative talk personalities believe that the party shift will bode well for their shows, giving them more
fodder to attack the Democrats. Others say that politics doesn't matter at all. For instance, Greg Knapp, a talk
show host for Radio America, believes that talk radio isn't driven by elections or politics, unless you're Rush
Limbaugh.
14
But as the Texas-based conservative host Lynn Woolley told Talkers magazine, bubbling under the
surface is the liberal resentment of conservative talk radio.
15
Woolley predicts that the Democratic leadership,
especially with the prospect of a Democratic president in 2008, might push for a return of the Fairness Doctrine,
which would mandate equal representation of political opinion on the airwaves.
A reinstatement of the policy whose repeal ushered in the modern era of talk radio would dramatically shake up
the industry. For now at least, most observers believe that despite changing winds in Washington, it is unlikely to
happen.
)ootnotes
1. M Street Directory 1989-1999 and nside Radio, Radio Book, 2006-2007. nside Radio, formerly M Street
Corporation, redefined the news/talk category to remove the category of sports talk. t began recording stations
with the all-sports format in 1994. Before that, the news/talk figures reflect a removal of the estimated sports talk
stations. According to Scott Fybush of nside Radio, the number of sports stations was insignificant before 1993.
%-1
2. Talkers magazine, Top Talk Personalities,
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&temid=34. Talkers bases its
analysis on Arbitron's Spring 2006 Monday-Sunday weekly cume ratings, supported by other reliable indicators in
rated and non-rated markets. Estimates are rounded off to the nearest .25 million listeners.
3.Pew Research Center for the People & the Press biennial news consumption survey, Online Papers Modestly
Boost Newspaper Readership, July 30, 2006.
4.Arbitron, Radio Today: How Americans Listen to Radio, 2006 Edition, February 14, 2006(
Note: Talkers magazine also similarly reports the 25-44 age group at 37%.
5.Talkers magazine, The Talk Radio Research Project,
http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&temid=33. Data are drawn from
interviews with listeners of general news/talk radio across the U.S., supplemented by input from talk radio
programmers, hosts, sales personnel, radio station in-house research, and some studies by academic institutions.
6.http://www.sirius.com
-.Sirius news release, Howard Stern Earns ncentive Payment Reflecting Record Subscriber Growth, January 9,
2007.
%.XM offers approximately 170 channels versus Sirius' 130, as of December 2006.
'.Talkers magazine, Top Talk Personalities, http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=17&temid=34
10. Air America press release, Air America Radio Announced Today That t Has Filed for Chapter 11
Protection, October 13, 2006.
11.Talkers magazine, The Top Talk Radio Audiences, as of spring 2006.
12. Kevin Casey, Speculation on the Future of the Stick, Talkers magazine, November, 2006.
13. bid.
14. Ellen Ratner, Talkers magazine, News/talk radio gears to post-election environment, November 2006.
15. bid.
-thnic
Intro
%-2
By the Project for Excellence in Journalism
The story of the ethnic media heading into 2007 is one of a bright past and present, but perhaps a more
complicated future.
On the surface of the numbers, there is a lot of good news to report. While many mainstream outlets are suffering
declines in audience and revenue, the ethnic media seem to be riding above it all. For the most part, their
audience and revenue numbers are still growing. Demographic figures show not only that the number of foreign-
language speakers has grown, but also that the communities in which those people live have fanned out around
the country, creating new markets for the ethnic print and broadcast outlets to serve. And more of the publications
are having their circulations audited, a sign of growing maturation and interest in giving advertisers more solid
measures of their readerships.
Still, there are signs of potential difficulty in changing demographics. The year 2006 was the first time that growth in
the U.S. Latino population came more from births than immigration. And there is reason to believe that those
second-generation citizens are more likely to turn to English-language outlets. n addition, experts in the industry
say ethnic media are at least five years behind the mainstream media in moving to the nternet, with many smaller
publications having done little or nothing in that area. And the sale of the Hispanic broadcast giant Univision in
2006, while it was a blockbuster deal, did not generate the interest from buyers that many had expected. But this
vibrant media sector is healthy, though going through some changes.
%etho!ology
By the Project for Excellence in Journalism
The data for this study were collected in two parts. Much of the study is based on research conducted originally by
other people or organizations. Other research, particularly the content analysis, is original work conducted
specifically for this report.
For the data aggregated from other researchers, the Project took several steps. First, we tried to determine what
data had been collected and by whom for the eight media sectors studied. We organized the data into the seven
primary areas of interest we wanted to examine: content, audience, economics, ownership, newsroom
%-3
investment, alternative news outlets and public attitudes For all data ultimately used, the Project sought and
gained permission for their use
Next, the Project studied the data closely to determine where elements reinforced each other and where there
were apparent contradictions or gaps n doing so, the Project endeavored to determine the value and validity of
each data set That in many cases involved going back to the sources who collected the research in the first place
Where data conflicted, we have included all relevant sources and tried to explain their differences, either in
footnotes or in the narratives
n analyzing the data for each media sector, we sought insight from experts by having at least three outside
readers for each sector chapter Those readers raised questions, offered arguments and questioned data where
they saw fit
All sources are cited in footnotes or within the narrative, and listed alphabetically in a source bibliography The
data used in the report are also available in more complete tabular form online, where users can view the raw
material, sort it on their own and make their own charts and graphs Our goal was not only to organize the
available material into a clear narrative, but to also collect all the public data on journalism in one usable place n
many cases, the Project paid for the use of the data
For the original content analysis research conducted by the Project, the methodology follows
Web Site Analysis %etho!ology
As the nternet continues to change the news industry and the methods of production, circulation and
consumption, it is ever more critical to understand the emerging trends and news outlets available online Citizens
must make daily choices about what sites to go to for various kinds of news information, but it is largely up to
them to figure out which site can best fit their needs at the moment And in many instances they may be making
choices without fully understanding why
The content analysis element of the 2007 Annual Report on the State of the News Media was designed to try to
sort through the many different kinds of sites that offer news information What do some sites emphasize over
other things? Are there common tendencies? The creation of the study and the analysis of the findings was a
multi-step process
Sa'"le Design an! Web Site 0a"ture
To assess the range of news Web sites available, we selected 38 different Web sites that provide such
information The sites were initially drawn from the seven media sectors that PEJ analyzes in each annual report
L Newspaper (9 sites from a mix of national, regional and local papers)
L Cable news (3 sites)
L Network News (3 sites, commercial and public; NBC's online identity is merged with that of MSNBC
L Local TV (2 sites)
L Radio (2 sites, one national network and one local)
L Weekly news magazine (3 sites)
L Online-only news sites (10 sites ranging from aggregators to citizen-based sites to online magazines and
L Online blogs (4))
n addition, we included one foreign broadcast site (BBC News) and the site of one wire service (Due to the
language barrier, Ethnic, non-English language Web sites were not included in the study )
The result was the following list of sites
Sites Stu!ie!
ABC News Com http //abcnews go com
%-4
BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk
Benicia News http://www.benicianews.com
Boston Phoenix http://www.thephoenix.com
CBS11 TV http://cbs11tv.com
CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com
Chicago Sun Times http://www.suntimes.com
CNN http://www.cnn.com
Crooks and Liars http://www.crooksandliars.com
Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com
Des Moines Register http://www.desmoinesregister.com
Digg http://digg.com
Economist http://www.economist.com
Fox News http://www.foxnews.com
Global voices http://www.globalvoicesonline.org
King5 TV http://www.king5.com
Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com
Little Green Footballs http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com
Michelle Malkin http://www.michellemalkin.com
MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com
AOL News http://news.aol.com
Google News http://news.google.com
Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com
New York Post http://www.nypost.com
New York Times http://www.nytimes.com
NPR http://www.npr.org
Ohmynews.com http://english.ohmynews.com
PBS NewsHour http://www.pbs.org/newshour
%-5
Reuters http://www.reuters.com
Salon http //salon com
San Fran Bay Guardian http://www. sfbg com
Slate http //slate com
Time Magazine http://www. time com
Topix http://www. topix net
USA Today http://www. usatoday com
Washington Post http://www. washingtonpost com
The Week Magazine http://www. theweekmagazine com
WTOP Radio http://www. wtop com
Web sites were captured by a team of professional content coders At each download, coders made an electronic
and printed hard-copy of the homepages for each site as well as the top five news stories Prominence was
determined as follows
The biggest headline at the top of the screen is the most prominent story t may or may not have an image
associated with it The second-most prominent story is one that is attached to an image at the top of the screen, if
that is a different story from the most prominent story f there is no image at the top of the screen, (or there are
two significant stories attached to the same image) refer then to the next-largest headline To determine the next-
most-prominent stories, refer first to the size of the headlines, and then the place (height) on the screen f two
stories have the same font size and are at the same height on the screen, then give the story on the left more
prominence
Stories were defined as
L Any headlines that linked to a landing page within the Web site rather than a specific news report were
omitted, as were links to landing pages of other Web sites
L We did include links to specific stories on other Web sites as well as video or audio stories
0a"ture Ti'ing
Web sites were initially studied from September 18 through October 6, 2006 For that initial review, each site was
captured and coded four different times For two captures, the research team coded for the entire set of variables,
both the homepage analysis and the variables related to the content of news stories The other two rounds of
capture were coded only for the variables relating to the content of the lead stories
Each site was then studied again during the week of February 12-16, 2007, and coded separately Results for the
two time periods were compared n cases where features had changed, we closely examined the site again to
confirm the change or correct inconsistencies Final analyses were based on the confirmed February site scores
0o!ing Sche'e an! /roce!ure
To create the coding scheme, we first worked to identify the different kinds of features available online
everything from contacting the author to quickly finding just what you want to receiving your news free and how
they could be measured After several weeks of exploratory research, we identified 63 different quantitative
measures and developed those into a working codebook (see list of primary variables below)
%-6
Coding was performed at the PEJ by a team of seven professional in-house coders, overseen by a senior
researcher and a methodologist Coders were trained on a standardized codebook that contained a dictionary of
coding variables, operations definitions, measurement scales and detailed instructions and examples The
codebook was divided into two sections The first was based on an inventory of the Web site's homepage That
was performed three separate times twice in September, 2006, and once in February, 2007 The second
component involved coding the content of news stories themselves We included the top five stories for the
variables related to the content of the news and took the average score for each variable
Before coding began, coders were trained on the codebook Excel coding sheets were designed and used
consistently throughout the process Meetings were held throughout to discuss questions, and where necessary
additional captures took place to verify findings
Coders followed a series of standardized rules for coding and quantifying Web site traits Three variables deserve
specific mention
1 "ultimedia components on the homepage Coders counted all content items, defined as links to all material
other than landing pages or indexes of some sort ncluded were narrative text, still photos, interactive graphics,
video, audio, live streams, live Q&A's, polls, user-based blogs, podcast content and slide shows Next, the coders
tallied the total number of content items on the page as well as the totals for each media form and entered the
percentages for each into the data base
2 Ad%ertisements n counting advertisements on the homepage, coders included all ads, from obvious banners
and flash advertisements to the smaller single-link sponsors of a site Self-promotional ads were also included in
the total The idea of this variable was to estimate the economic agenda of a given site based on the amount of
advertising on the homepage Advertisements on internal pages were not included in the tally Because of day-to-
day variance in the total number of homepage ads, the final figure was either the average based on all the visits
to a site or, in cases where a site redesign had clearly occurred, the latest use of ads
3 Also in the Byline variable, blog posts required special rules n counting bylines, for instance, researchers
coded a blog entry as if the entry was posted by the blog hostJohn Amato on Crooks and Liars, for example f
the blog entry was posted by a regular contributor or staff, the story scored a 2 And if the blog entry was
posted by an outside contributor, not bylined, or consisted primarily of outside material (an entry, for instance, that
simply said, Read this, followed by an excerpt from another source), then the post received a score of 3, the
lowest on the scale of original stories
Analysis
n analyzing the data, we were able to group variables into six different areas of Web emphasis User
Customization, User Participation, Multimedia Use, Content Branding and Originality, Depth of Content and
Revenue Streams
Customi0ation includes
L Homepage customization (allows user to tailor page)
L Search options (simple or advanced search)
L RSS feeds options and prominence
L Podcasts options and prominence
L Mobile phone delivery options
Participation includes
L Users' contribution to content
L Scheduled, live discussions
L Ability to
L e-mail author
L post comments
%--
L rate the article/post
L take a poll
L List of most-viewed stories
L List of most-e-mailed stories
L List of most-linked-to stories
"ultimedia includes
Percent of homepage content devoted to
L Narrative
L Photos/non-interactive graphics
L Video
L Audio
L Live stream
L User blog
L Live Q & A
L Slide show
L Poll
L nteractive graphic
Editorial Branding includes
L Breadth of sources
L Editorial process
L Use of bylines
L Direction of story links
(internal or external)
#tory ?epth includes
L Frequency of updates
L Use of related story links
L Use of archive links
Re%enue #treams includes
L Registration requirements
L Fee-based content
L Archive fees
L Number of homepage ads
(Self-promotional and external)
Codes within each variable were translated into a numerical rating from low to high for that particular feature Then PEJ
research analysts produced an Excel template to tally the scores (summing the variables) for each site within the six categories
Thus for each of the six categories, each site had a final score The range of scores was then divided into four quartiles and
sites were marked according to which quartile they fell into
%-%
%-'