Yes, he's getting airtime real cheap

On Wednesday, Oct. 29 at 8pm, less than a week before you cast your vote for freedom or dictatorship, Barack Obama's campaign will air half-hour commercials on both NBC and CBS. In booking the airtime, not only did Obama throw Ben Silverman's future into turmoil by bumping the unwatched Knight Rider off its regular time slot, but he also pumped nearly $1 million into the coffers of each network. At NBC, he will pay $891,250 for the privilege, and at CBS he will spend $961,000. Those prices, of course, are ridiculously discounted — and that's because federal law requires political candidates to be provided the "lowest unit cost" for airtime on a broadcast network (different from cable). Which means they get airtime on the mad dirty cheap.

But just how cheap? Well, consider that NBC will charge advertisers $3 million per 30 seconds during the Super Bowl next year, where nearly 100 million viewers are expected to show up.

So, let's use some fuzzy math and say that Obama will capture just 20 percent of that audience across both networks, or 20 million viewers. So, while 30 minutes of Super Bowl airtime would cost $180 million, or $36 million for just 20 percent of the audience, Obama will spend just 5.55 percent of that sum for the same thing. Oh, and while his programs won't leave anybody with a giant ring to wear, it could determine who gets to live in the White House. So that's sort of a big deal.

Oct 10, 2008 · posted by david · Link · 2 Responses
the plague of the net

Ben Silverman's job at NBC has an online component for digital programing. Meet Silverman's Internet equivalent, Cameron Death:

Mr. Death said his team is already in discussions with an automotive company and a hotel chain to become integrated sponsors of "Four Corners," an "Amazing Race"-style competition where contestants from four extreme locations across the globe race to make it to the center of the U.S. "We want to find a way to do it well where it's still additive to the story," Mr. Death said.

Knowing how they run things over at NBC with their celebrity executives, next time you try to watch an episode of Heroes on a site not supported by NBC, Mr. Death will call up your house and whispers "Seven Days." For that he will be paid $32 million a year, plus benefits.

Oct 10, 2008 · posted by drew · Link · Respond


BIG NEWS you guys: President Barack Obama bought up a half an hour of national airtime on CBS and NBC to address U.S. voters less than a week before elections:

Obama's theme is not just change but unity, so he's appealing to the whole nation rather than a handful of tossup states," Sabato said. "He wants to win the popular vote by a good margin, which will enable him to govern."
And he's got the cash for it.
"This is another indication, if there needs to be any more, that Barack Obama's got more money than [available] television time to buy," said Evan Tracey, COO of the Campaign Media Analysis Group in Arlington, Va.

Which is good news, because the shows Obama will be bumping that evening will be Gary Unmarried and Knight Rider on CBS and NBC respectively. And since no one watches Knight Rider unless they are hardcore Will Arnett fans, and Gary Unmarried just sounds like a made-up show, it would behoove the Democratic campaign to just buy up the 8 pm Wednesday night slots every week until the election. At least it's a better idea than just spending all your monopoly money for a whole Obama channel on the Dish Network that no one watches.

Oct 10, 2008 · posted by drew · Link · 2 Responses
The father, the son, and the holy Tina Fey

The media has a terrible habit of comparing their serendipitous successes with horrific human tragedies. When Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston split up in Jan. 2005, Us Weekly's Kent Brownridge (then Jann Wenner's No. 2, and now the head of OK!) said, "For a celebrity weekly, this is our tsunami," before rushing to print a 40,000-word book on the break-up. That was, of course, one month after an earthquake in the Indian Ocean created devastating tsunamis that killed a quarter of a million people in 11 countries. Brownridge apologized the very next day.

Then, in the summer of 2005, back when Gruner + Jahr still had a U.S. presence, then-editor of Fast Company John Bryne described the countdown to a decision about which mags would survive — G+J was selling four titles to Meredith, but ended up keeping FC and Inc. — as "kind of like being in a hostage crisis." TOTALLY THE SAME THING!

So how does Lorne Michaels, the Saturday Night Live executive producer, feel about the way things have transpired in this presidential election, which he has reaped for comedic gold?

CONTINUED »

Oct 9, 2008 · posted by david · Link · 1 Response
The Russert Rivals

NBC's Meet the Press is sloooowly dipping in ratings since the death of host Tim Russert. The station was beaten out by CBS's Face the Nation last month, barely ahead of ABC's This Week.

The question isn't: Why is MTP falling, since the answer is obvious: Russert was Meet the Press. The question is, why did it take so long?

CONTINUED »

Oct 8, 2008 · posted by drew · Link · 6 Responses
Only problem? Letterman has been right on Palin from the beginning

After getting dissed and dumped, David Letterman has been on a John McCain tear of late. From bashing the candidate in his opening monologue to inviting actress Julia Louis-Dreyfuss on the show for another dose of vitriol, the Late Show host has been snuffing up the YouTube views. On Friday night, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams sat down for another opportunity for Letterman to attack Palin after watching her dodge-y VP debate performance.

Kudos to Williams for not only remaining neutral — "I can't correct you because I have no opinions" — but steering Letterman to seeing all sides … and then letting him crap on Palin.

Interesting, however:

CONTINUED »

Oct 6, 2008 · posted by david · Link · 2 Responses

Warren Buffett, the billionaire Berkshire Hathaway investor who seems to have more billions of dollars to spare than the U.S. government, just threw down a $3 billion stake in General Electric, the parent company of NBC, after throwing $5 billion at Goldman Sachs to float the bank's bragging rights as a survivor of the economic fallout. And while we care about Wall Street and all that, it's Buffett's investment in GE that piqued our interest, particularly because of the favorable terms he worked out with maybe racist Jeff Immelt.

GE sold Buffett $3b worth of preferred stock, which pays a 10 percent dividend, though NBC is entitled to buy back the stake in three years so long as they fork over a 10 percent return, or $3.3b. But Buffett wouldn't have extended an olive branch to GE if things weren't even more favorable to him. And indeed, they are: Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway "is receiving warrants to purchase $3 billion of G.E. common stock for $22.25 a share, at any time over the next five years." With GE trading at $24.50 a share now, if the stock goes up, Buffett gets to pick up a larger stake at a discounted rate. And now that Buffett has given GE his vote of confidence, well, that's a pretty possible scenario, since Wall Street sees Buffett's touch as that of Midas.

So, good news for everybody, right? All of this dealmaking, though, has one individual raising a single eyebrow: Brian Williams.

CONTINUED »

Oct 2, 2008 · posted by david · Link · Respond
Suicide is painless


What is the idiom about those who fly too close to the sun? For Harvey Weinstein, the "sun" in this analogy would be the apex of Hollywood success, the bright shining stardom that the producer and his brother Bob found themselves in the middle of for the last two decades. But lately Harvey has lost his shine: First, MGM dumped all of the movies they were planning on promoting for the brothers back onto Weinstein's lap, then there was the injunction to keep Weinstein from moving Project Runway to Lifetime. And now, Weinstein is paying one million dollars to charity in penance for lying to the New York Post about the producer's relationship with the late Sydney Pollack during the last days of the actor/director's life.

Yeesh, not a good day to be Harvey:

CONTINUED »

Oct 1, 2008 · posted by drew · Link · 1 Response
Who does he think he is, a journalist?


Despite her reluctance to open up to any publication regarding her ex Raffaello Follieri, Anne Hathaway broke it down on The Late Show last night after some intense badgering by David Letterman. Which means that Letterman officially accomplished what Graydon Carter and all of Vanity Fair's pull could not: putting Hathaway on the spot.

Clip after the jump (fun stuff starts in around 2:40):

CONTINUED »

Oct 1, 2008 · posted by drew · Link · 2 Responses


ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and the Associated Press are suing Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson for enacting a law to expand the amount of space news orgs have to remain from polling stations. Previously, the law was the crews had to stand 100 feet away from the booths (inside the buildings), but with the new statutes, that 100-foot circle would start outside the buildings, pushing the networks farther away:

"As a polling reporter moves farther and farther away from the polling place, the likelihood of a voter getting into his or her car and driving away, or of melding into a crowd of non-voters, increases.

"Second, as distance increases, it becomes harder to discern those who are voters from those who are not.

"Third, as distance increases, the statistical reliability of the sample itself decreases because it becomes impossible to interview in the scientifically selected pattern (e.g. every fourth voter, every fifth voter, etc.)."

You can see how this be a problem: After polling, most Republicans veer off to the right of a building to go to McDonalds, while most Democrats tend to get in their car and crumple into a tiny ball to cry. It would be really hard to get a random sampling of the pollsters.

Sep 30, 2008 · posted by drew · Link · 1 Response
He says he didn't complain about Olbermann. Now he says he did.

brokawmtp.jpg

JOSSIP REPORTS — Um, Tom Brokaw? You're a liar. Yes, you're a well-respected newsman, who anchored NBC Nightly News for nearly two decades with aplomb, overseeing everything from the First Intifada in the Gaza Strip to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But you're also full of fibs.

When Jossip and others reported earlier this month that you were among the NBC News veterans voicing your concerns to the high ups that Keith Olbermann and Chris Mattthews' partisanship was making 30 Rock stink of liberalism instead of neutrality, you quickly denied the claim, saying you never voiced concerns to GE chief Jeff Immelt, NBC News head Steve Capus, nor MSNBC president Phil Griffin.

Except here we are, just a few weeks later, and — what's this? — you've changed your story.

CONTINUED »

Sep 30, 2008 · posted by david · Link · 8 Responses
Et tu, Brokaw?

Tom Brokaw currently occupies the chair once held by the late, great Tim Russert on NBC's Meet The Press. While there's been much speculation on who will hold that spot once Brokaw's interim is over (with the current popular theory that it will be a whole host of people, including David Gregory and Chuck Todd) there is no doubt who won't be in the posish: Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

The MSNBC in-fighting during the DNC was well-documented by the MSM, and it turns out that the catfight between Olbermann and Matthews nixed their chances of being the political anchors for the station…because of Brokaw himself.

Treachery's afoot!

CONTINUED »

Sep 30, 2008 · posted by drew · Link · 8 Responses

Is it unethical to run political ads during newscasts that discuss politics, especially if the newscasts decry the ads, calling them lies? Um, duh. Definitely. That's a ridiculous question. Then again, television advertising revenues have fallen precipitously as of late. And when there's money involved, ridiculous, easily answered questions have a tendency to become complicated gray areas necessitating really involved articles looking into the matter. Yuck:

CONTINUED »

Sep 29, 2008 · posted by cord · Link · Respond
Most importantly, for you, the viewer

projectrunway.jpg

JOSSIP BREAKS IT DOWN — Since Friday's announcement that a court ruling would keep The Weinstein Company from moving Project Runway from NBC Universal's Bravo to Lifetime, where it got a sweeter deal, the TV press and most homosexuals have been wondering what, exactly, this means for the future of the series. Is Heidi Klum going to lose her shit and auf everybody? Is Tim Gunn going to be able to make it work? Who will Nina Garcia stab with her heel? Time-sensitive questions, people! So given the current situation — which keeps Lifetime from airing the show, and leaves its status on Bravo with a very giant cursive question mark — here's how the decision is going to affect interested parties:

CONTINUED »

Sep 29, 2008 · posted by david · Link · 6 Responses
For now

Says NBC Uni in a just-delivered statement: "NBC Universal is pleased that the court granted our motion for a preliminary injunction against The Weinstein Company. The overwhelming evidence demonstrated that The Weinstein Company violated NBC Universal's right of first refusal to future cycles of Project Runway. After hearing all of the evidence, the court issued an order prohibiting The Weinstein Company from taking the show or any spin-off to Lifetime."

This means: "The Weinstein Co. and Lifetime will not be able to promote, market or exhibit “Project Runaway” until further notice [...] As part of the Friday order, NBC Universal was told to put up a $20 million bond. The Weinstein Co. had asked New York State Supreme Court Judge Richard B. Lowe to set a $200 million bond, which it said was the value of its deal with Lifetime."

Update: And says The Weinstein Co. in a statement: "We are glad that the court held that NBC Universal cannot exhibit the program on Bravo and that court required NBC Universal to post a minimum $20 million bond. Obviously we will be appealing and remain committed to our Partners."

Sep 26, 2008 · posted by david · Link · Respond
Next Page