Yesterday I linked to a Mediaite piece by Joe Concha making the argument that cable news taunting was bad for business. I needed time to think about Concha’s article before responding…
Here’s Concha’s argument in a nutshell…
If I’m a loyal CNN or MSNBC viewer and I watch these kinds of segments that focus on Fox News, do you know what I might do the following night?
I’d switch to Fox to see what all the buzz was about. And who knows? Maybe I’d never go back if I liked what I saw.
On a superficial level Concha’s argument makes sense. But the more I thought about it the less sense it made. 30 years ago it would be a far more likely outcome. Not anymore. With DVRs, streaming internet clips, and websites like Mediaite which highlight even the tiniest overblown controversy, one doesn’t have to choose between one show or another. They can have it all; they can watch one show and then review their DVR recording of the other show or jump on the web and watch clips or read Mediaite writing about it. Nielsen is working hard to try measure everything now and the danger of a network losing revenue because of a program switch will diminish in the future as those new metrics take shape.
Concha correctly notes that Keith Olbermann changed the rules for cable news taunting. But then Concha goes on to make an incorrect deduction…
Upon returning to MSNBC in 2003, Olbermann quickly realized that providing an audience five hours of compelling programming per week was a difficult task. Most guests are fairly predictable and dry, most political topics outside of catfights between Republicans and Democrats, tedious. So he created a foil, a nemesis, in the form of his decidedly-more popular (in terms of ratings) 8:00 p.m. competitor, Bill O’Reilly. The formula (as pointed out in this space before), was simple:
Olbermann would attack O’Reilly, invariably in his “Worst Persons” segment.
O’Reilly would refuse to respond to Olbermann by name. Even his guests and contributors were instructed not to evoke Keith in any manner. Instead, “NBC News” and “General Electric” (NBC’s parent company at the time) were basically code for “Olbermann” when firing back.
O’Reilly knew responding to an anchor with half his audience would only serve to grow that audience, fan the flames and hurt his image of superiority (again, from a ratings perspective) by punching down. In the end, Olbermann never seriously challenged O’Reilly, and the latter only expanded his influence throughout all levels (television, print radio, etc.) of media.
There are several things wrong here and I will tick then off one by one…
1. This feud wasn’t about business. It was personal. It was always personal. Olbermann’s attacks on O’Reilly were never originally about trying to gain viewers or boost his program’s profile. They were about humiliating O’Reilly. And they worked. Olbermann got under O’Reilly’s skin. Badly.
2. Concha is correct that O’Reilly refused to engage Olbermann by name. But what Concha does not acknowledge is that by not responding with Olbermann’s name and refusing to engage him directly but instead engage NBC by proxy, that he was still responding to Olbermann and everyone knew it was a response to Olbermann. It took such extreme forms of ridiculousness that Geraldo Rivera mentioned Olbermann’s name on the air to O’Reilly and O’Reilly still wouldn’t acknowledge Olbermann’s name, which all but cemented the widely held belief that O’Reilly’s not responding to Olbermann was still responding to Olbermann. Nobody was fooled.
3. By saying that Olbermann never challenged O’Reilly’s viewership levels Concha uses the wrong metric to argue that Olbermann’s shtick failed. It didn’t fail. It was wildly successful. Olbermann got O’Reilly to respond by not responding. That non-response got the media to write about it all the time. Olbermann’s numbers went up. Countdown was the first MSNBC show to beat CNN in primetime. Yes, Countdown never got close to catching The Factor but that is just one metric. In terms of just about every other metric; publicity, legitimization of MSNBC as a real player in prime, MSNBC ratings growth, taking Olbermann to NBC Sunday Night Football…the feud with O’Reilly was the springboard for everything positive that came Countdown’s way in the years that followed.
4. The feud did hurt O’Reilly; maybe not in the ratings but definitely in the world of public opinion. It exposed O’Reilly as a thin skinned talent with a touch of egomania; incapable of ignoring a cable news gnat that was buzzing in his ear. O’Reilly’s response turned that gnat into a wasp. It forever changed how a significant portion of the cable news population viewed O’Reilly.
5. Concha says that O’Reilly’s influence expanded as a result of the feud but fails to provide any direct evidence linking the feud to said expansion. I see no tangible linkage. What I do see is a rise in ratings as Obama was sworn in as President and FNC’s popularity in general continued to expand. O’Reilly was already an author before he put Olbermann on a pedestal so it’s impossible to tie O’Reilly’s popularity as an author directly to Olbermann especially since he didn’t write about Olbermann. O’Reilly and Glenn Beck did some successful tours together but one would be hard pressed to tie that to Olbermann. On the other side of the coin, O’Reilly quit doing radio during the feud (not because of the feud) and that did eliminate one avenue of reach O’Reilly used to enjoy.
The Olbermann O’Reilly feud did exactly what Olbermann set out to accomplish. It got under O’Reilly’s skin. Olbermann correctly deduced that O’Reilly’s character makeup would preclude a direct response and would force O’Reilly to indirectly respond. That insistence upon non-responding responding would be picked up by the media. Yes, there would be a point when people would lose interest in the feud. But it gave Olbermann and Countdown the beach head the show needed to drive inland and establish MSNBC’s presence in prime time it never had before. That feud was great for business for quite a while despite the fact that it wasn’t about business. It was personal. For years Olbermann had O’Reilly’s number. It wasn’t until O’Reilly took the fight to GE that he was able to level the playing field.
But for all its success, it was a unique moment in history never to be repeated again. All subsequent cable news feuds have failed to accomplish anything. There are several reasons for this.
The Olbermann feud was the first. And because it was so personal it was extremely intense. Cable news viewers are now acclimated to that behavior. Nobody is going to be able to sustain a feud like that now because viewers just aren’t as interested as they were. We may not have seen it all now but we have seen enough. And Jon Stewart? Please. All Stewart does is ridicule. He may or may not be better than Olbermann was when Olbermann was firing on all cylinders but the difference between Stewart and Olbermann is obvious; Stewart is a comedian and Olbermann isn’t. Stewart’s whole show is about comedy. Olbermann’s never was.
Filed under: FNC, MSNBC
