Michael.Morgan@Saturn.UCC.UMASS.EDU (Michael Morgan) (02/12/91)
[Here's a note that crossed my desk from CRTNet, the Communications Research and Theory Network, that is very relevant to the discussion of NBC coverage decisions during this time of war, and related conversations in this group. -- Dave] Yesterday's NYT (2/7/91, Business section) has an article entitled, "FEW SPONSORS FOR TV WAR NEWS." The article notes that advertisers "have been extremely reluctant to buy commercial time on the special network news programs about the war in the Persian Gulf, and the absence of advertising may reduce war-related coverage at least one network, CBS [sic]". At CBS, this is likely to mean fewer 'specials' about the war. "[CBS] said that although the specials had all received high ratings, they had sold only about 20 percent of their commercial time, making them economically unfeasible for the network." Peter Lund of CBS said, "You are absolutely going to see fewer of the prime-time news specials on CBS. In fairness to our shareholders, we can't lose $1 million every time we do one of them, and we are losing an easy million between what we lose in ad revenue and production costs." The most interesting part: "The CBS executives said they had even offered advertisers assurances that the war specials could be tailored to provide better lead-ins to commercials. One way would be to insert the commercials after segments that were specially produced with upbeat images or messages about the war, like patriotic views from the home front." There are many more gems in the article, but I am most struck by the notion that the networks may be explicitly (explicitly) trying to "sweeten" the war for advertisers' sake. Conspiracy theories are unnecessary; rather, this illuminates the shared interests of the media and the military -- toward different ends, perhaps, but clearly via the same means. My implication here is of course that a sweeter war sells better. It serves the Pentagon's assumption that support for the war will be sustained by underplaying the horrifying realities and by emphasizing clean, surgical strikes that supposedly only destroy buildings and bridges, etc. And it soothes advertisers who may be, in the words of an anonymous ABC executive, "skittish" about advertising. One ad exec noted, "After a segment about a chemical attack that includes a shot of a disfigured face, it might not be the best time to talk about Oil of Olay skin care." Another reminder that, when considering the question of military censorship, we should not lose sight of the corporate and commercial pressures that constrain and shape the "news". I also just heard Rush Limbaugh (without country music) guffawing about some Congressional hearings to be held on whether the military is censoring too much info; I think they are to start on Feb 20. Scheduled to testify are Walter Cronkite, Pete Williams, and others. Should be interesting. Michael Morgan