CNBC Sends A Message
This analysis was written by MarketWatch's Jon Friedman.
Seven days ago, CNBC news chief Jonathan Wald had one of the most prestigious titles in the media industry.
Today, he's a cautionary tale.
Last week, CNBC announced that Wald soon will leave the business-news network. He and the General Electric unit couldn't come to terms on a new contract, CNBC President Mark Hoffman said.
"Unfortunately, we could not come to terms on a new agreement and have made the decision together that the best solution is to part company at this time," Hoffman told employees in an official statement.
Who exactly is Jonathan Wald? Business-news junkies might wonder. He isn't one of CNBC's anchors. He doesn't stand on the floor of a stock exchange and shout out quotes from the ticker. Nor would you have found him doing the hard duty of standing outside Bernie Madoff's Manhattan apartment building for hours while hoping to catch a glimpse of the disgraced Wall Street financier.
So, why should you give a hoot about Wald? For that matter, why should anyone outside the clubby world of television news?
You should care about this development if you care about the state and future of the media. The Wald story is a defining moment. You can call it, with apologies to author Malcolm Gladwell, the tipping point of the news industry.
CNBC put a line in the sand for all media companies. It's sending a message to the world that it wouldn't pay up to keep Wald, one of the brightest executives around.
People in the TV news business tell me a sea change is coming in how the industry's stars will be compensated. It will extend beyond business channels like CNBC throughout all of television news. On-air reporters and anchors may seek long-term contracts at reduced wages, instead of trying to cram all the money they can into a one-year deal.
Previously, they wouldn't have worried as much about having job security, since they felt they could just go to work for the TV station across the street. Now, good jobs are likely to be scarce.
What this means to the public is that journalism quality is going to sink. TV stations will try to hire younger, less experienced, less sophisticated news professionals as a way to keep costs down.
No illusions
What makes the TV news world so unique in the annals of corporate America is that its stars are so familiar to the people who reside on Main Street.
We in the media like to believe there is something inherently good, moral or special about us because people pay attention, happily and unhappily, to what we say and write for a living.
Oh sure, it matters plenty who sells the most Ford cars or brings in the most brokerage commissions at Merrill Lynch, or who manages Fidelity's largest mutual fund.
But can you tell me their names, without Googling them? And if I told you their identities, would you do more than shrug your shoulders? Probably not.
When I mention CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo, though, you are likely to nod your head in recognition. Viewers can relate to the people they see everyday on TV. That's called star power.
But for the other folks in the media, even those who appear in front of the TV camera, life probably won't be the same as the recession deepens.
Meanwhile, the journalists should have no illusions, either. If CNBC could turn its back on its top news official, who's to say it wouldn't do the same with anyone at the network not named Maria Bartiromo.
To take the theory a bit further, it's likely to assume that media companies -- like all industries -- will hold the lines on compensation for everyone except the top-draw stars at the networks, newspapers, magazines and Internet sites.
Media organizations have felt the pinch of the recession, too, for a few years. With Detroit's auto industry and the Wall Street investment banking business collapsing, media companies also are taking a big hit.
Things are changing, fast, in an unforgiving world.
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Are media people any more special than steelworkers or brokers or grocery clerks?
By Jon Friedman
MarketWatch Seven days ago, CNBC news chief Jonathan Wald had one of the most prestigious titles in the media industry.
Today, he's a cautionary tale.
Last week, CNBC announced that Wald soon will leave the business-news network. He and the General Electric unit couldn't come to terms on a new contract, CNBC President Mark Hoffman said.
"Unfortunately, we could not come to terms on a new agreement and have made the decision together that the best solution is to part company at this time," Hoffman told employees in an official statement.
Who exactly is Jonathan Wald? Business-news junkies might wonder. He isn't one of CNBC's anchors. He doesn't stand on the floor of a stock exchange and shout out quotes from the ticker. Nor would you have found him doing the hard duty of standing outside Bernie Madoff's Manhattan apartment building for hours while hoping to catch a glimpse of the disgraced Wall Street financier.
So, why should you give a hoot about Wald? For that matter, why should anyone outside the clubby world of television news?
You should care about this development if you care about the state and future of the media. The Wald story is a defining moment. You can call it, with apologies to author Malcolm Gladwell, the tipping point of the news industry.
CNBC put a line in the sand for all media companies. It's sending a message to the world that it wouldn't pay up to keep Wald, one of the brightest executives around.
People in the TV news business tell me a sea change is coming in how the industry's stars will be compensated. It will extend beyond business channels like CNBC throughout all of television news. On-air reporters and anchors may seek long-term contracts at reduced wages, instead of trying to cram all the money they can into a one-year deal.
Previously, they wouldn't have worried as much about having job security, since they felt they could just go to work for the TV station across the street. Now, good jobs are likely to be scarce.
What this means to the public is that journalism quality is going to sink. TV stations will try to hire younger, less experienced, less sophisticated news professionals as a way to keep costs down.
No illusions
What makes the TV news world so unique in the annals of corporate America is that its stars are so familiar to the people who reside on Main Street.
We in the media like to believe there is something inherently good, moral or special about us because people pay attention, happily and unhappily, to what we say and write for a living.
Oh sure, it matters plenty who sells the most Ford cars or brings in the most brokerage commissions at Merrill Lynch, or who manages Fidelity's largest mutual fund.
But can you tell me their names, without Googling them? And if I told you their identities, would you do more than shrug your shoulders? Probably not.
When I mention CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo, though, you are likely to nod your head in recognition. Viewers can relate to the people they see everyday on TV. That's called star power.
But for the other folks in the media, even those who appear in front of the TV camera, life probably won't be the same as the recession deepens.
Meanwhile, the journalists should have no illusions, either. If CNBC could turn its back on its top news official, who's to say it wouldn't do the same with anyone at the network not named Maria Bartiromo.
To take the theory a bit further, it's likely to assume that media companies -- like all industries -- will hold the lines on compensation for everyone except the top-draw stars at the networks, newspapers, magazines and Internet sites.
Media organizations have felt the pinch of the recession, too, for a few years. With Detroit's auto industry and the Wall Street investment banking business collapsing, media companies also are taking a big hit.
Things are changing, fast, in an unforgiving world.
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Are media people any more special than steelworkers or brokers or grocery clerks?
By Jon Friedman
Popular on MoneyWatch
- Bernanke sends stocks, bonds skittering
- Bernanke holds the line on Fed monetary policy
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- Why geniuses don't have jobs
- Fed says it will continue $85B in bond purchases
- Microsoft slashes Surface prices to lure buyers
- Service helps you use Twitter to find a job
- Have you mastered the art of listening?
The space provided here is meant for commentary on the subject story, not purile insults.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DMorrisPE
The anonymous nature of the internet makes people a lot braver (and louder) than they would be if face to face.
The space provided here is meant for commentary on the subject story, not purile insults.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DMorrisPE
You are obviously new around here. EVERY thread turns into that, so get used to it.
Now, your side is going to resort to trying to silence any opposition. What do you call that if not facist.
Yep, we lost congress and this election, just the way your side lost elections. We aren''''t a dictatorship YET!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by dumdnc
Keep believing that its someone else''s fault that Republicans failed. You won''t do anything to change and it will just make Dems'' job easier maintaining their advantages.
---------------------
And instead of blaming some made up boogeyman like you do with the media, Dems adjusted their tactics. Got more people out to vote, went after minorites even harder and picked candidates who weren''t too polluted by Washington.
----------------------------
All the while, the media has gotten more left til now, they don''''t even make any attempt to hide the fact that they are in the tank for the left.
---------------------------
Opnion, nothing more.
--------------------------
Explain why the so called "major" networks" are in the tank. Explain why the print media is in the tank?
--------------------------
The internet has repalced print and TV as a large number of Americans'' primary news source. Not some perceived "liberal bias".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by dumdnc
Fairness Doctrine - both sides get their equal say. Got a problem with that?
News is about the NEWS, not the messenger. Any appropriately-dressed, articulate, news-reader will do to convey a story. "Personalities", along with their agendas and biases, have no business interjecting themselves into the presentation of the facts of the news. Just report the story. Dan Rather is a perfect example of letting bias influence his presentation, and his "facts". Nobody needs that.