Off the top of my head, I don’t recall the last time I missed an NFL playoff game. I’m sure I have, maybe because I had another pressing matter, but not because I decided not to watch one, at least until this weekend. During “Super Wild Card Weekend” 2024, the NFL, along with NBC, made a decision that should concern all sports fans. For the first time, an NFL playoff game was available only on a paid streaming service – Peacock.
Making a playoff game exclusively available on a paid streaming service that is not widely subscribed to (especially by those most likely to be NFL fans – numbers provided later) is insulting to those of us who watch every playoff game and especially those who make playoff football a social experience with friends and family.
If the NFL and NBC wanted to use a playoff game to get fans to tune in to Peacock, the correct action was to make Peacock free to everyone, if only for the game, even if it required signing up for emails or texts.
I found the promos that NBC ran the week before the Peacock game particularly offensive. They bragged about the historic nature of the game – a playoff game only on a streaming service. While it may have been historic for the NFL and NBC/Peacock, the promos failed to mention any benefit for the fan.
How does being forced to sign up for an additional streaming service that a viewer probably didn’t want or need just to watch one game benefit the NFL fan who simply wanted to watch a playoff game on a cold Saturday night in January?
If I’d considered signing up for Peacock, at least long enough to watch the game, those promos turned me off enough to ensure I didn’t.
I already subscribe to several paid services, including Amazon Prime, which has allowed me to watch Thursday Night Football throughout the season, and the NFL app, which has allowed me to see many games unavailable on OTA or cable TV throughout the past few seasons.
Because I bought a lifetime subscription to Sirius back when the satcaster launched and offered those plans, I could listen to the Chiefs routed the Dolphins in one of the coldest games in NFL history. However, on principle, and because the promos for the game were so insulting, I wasn’t willing to submit to the NFL and Peacock’s extortion – not even for a trial plan, which I would need to remember to cancel hopefully before getting charged.
The major sports leagues have increasingly watered down their rights and spread their games across more and more distribution channels over the past five-plus years. MLB added games to Apple TV. The NFL put games exclusively to Amazon Prime, its own NFL Network, and several other examples.
Several sources estimate the NFL revenues to be $18.6 billion in 2022. A CNBC report suggests broadcast revenues, including ABC/ESPN, CBS, NBC, and Amazon, are nearly $10 billion annually.
The more the NFL agrees to broadcast deals with subscription-based streamers, such as Amazon Prime, and especially playoff games with streamers like Peacock, the more they exclude fans who cannot afford an endless number of streaming services to view the games.
Extend this across all the streaming deals each league has, the cable, and the regional sports network fees, and it’s become insanely expensive to be a sports fan.
A reported 23 million watched the broadcast on the streaming service. But will viewership of the Kansas City-Miami game be comparable to other playoff games over the weekend?
How many people decided to forgo watching a game rather than signing up for a streaming service they previously didn’t subscribe to? More importantly, if there is a spike in subscriptions, how many will continue in the long term?
Peacock has used sports to juice its numbers before. During Comcast’s second-quarter 2021 earnings call, CEO Brian Roberts claimed Peacock had 54 million subscribers. Those numbers were on the heels of the Tokyo Olympic games.
As of the third quarter 2023, Peacock had about 28 million subscribers in the United States, according to Statista – barely 50% of what Peacock had after the Olympics, where most high-profile events were available, even if delayed, on OTA or cable television.
Further, according to research from Zippia (February 2023), a higher percentage of older demographics, particularly Baby Boomers, say they are unlikely to subscribe to Peacock (67%).
It’s understandable why NBC would want to make a deal like this for its Peacock streaming service. But the NFL must think long-term and be more considerate to its fans. Whatever additional revenue the league received for agreeing to the Peacock exclusive playoff game may cost more fan goodwill over the long run.
Without a doubt, revenue provided by the broadcast networks is critical to the NFL’s business model and other sports leagues. However, without fans, there are no ginormous broadcast contracts.
Although I am not suggesting that one playoff game exclusively on Peacock is going to chase fans from the NFL, I do believe that if the sports leagues continue to become excessively greedy at the expense of fans and make it costly to impossible for working people who struggle these days simply to lay out a nice spread for friends to enjoy while watching a game; eventually, it will test the loyalty and the leagues will find out where the limits are.
If I were the NFL commissioner, I would never have agreed to a deal that placed a playoff game exclusively on a paid streaming service. Let’s hope it’s a mistake that the NFL doesn’t repeat and that the other leagues notice.
Andy Bloom is president of Andy Bloom Communications. He specializes in media training and political communications. He has programmed legendary stations including WIP, WPHT and WYSP/Philadelphia, KLSX, Los Angeles and WCCO Minneapolis. He was Vice President Programming for Emmis International, Greater Media Inc. and Coleman Research. Andy also served as communications director for Rep. Michael R. Turner, R-Ohio. He can be reached by email at [email protected] or you can follow him on Twitter @AndyBloomCom.
What to Do When Your Fear Your Media Career is Headed to the Graveyard
If you think about career death so much that it detracts from being in the moment, maybe it really is time to move on.
“Do you guys ever think about dying?”
If you saw the Barbie movie, you know the line. Barbie is living the perfect and perfectly plastic life, perfectly choreographed and full of perfect smiles.
But the movie turns on that one line, basically shattering Barbie’s world with a concept no one there would ever have considered.
Why would you consider it when everything seemed in perfect order?
Well, when it comes to broadcasting and media, a lot of you think about dying … a lot. I do, too.
Of course, it’s not the stop breathing and get buried type of death but rather, the death of a career in media.
The truth is, when it comes to our business, very few people get to choose when it ends. Take a minute and consider a major media personality who truly “retired” after a multi-decade career.
It happens, but percentage-wise, it’s rare.
Take a minute and think. Name some. Name one. It’s not easy.
More often than not, you will get laid off or fired before you want to leave, and after a certain age, getting that next opportunity may be a bridge too far.
Then, you are done done.
That’s as much a music stopper as Barbie admitting she has considered her own mortality in the middle of the dance floor. Here on planet Earth, at least from the people in my orbit, the death of a media career often leads to even better professional options and more balanced lifestyle choices.
I have friends doing a million different things: Public relations, crisis management, content creation for large companies, political communications, fundraising, and teaching. Almost all of them tell me that it was such a stress relief to have a “normal” life, to not be worried about every pending contract or new boss.
Their work is appreciated. Their job is stable. And their schedule? Normal. Never has “normal” sounded so lovely than when they talk about watching shows with spouses, going out for a drink on a Tuesday, or having a regular pickleball game (or insert any middle-aged recreational sport).
I believe them.
The “sort of” comes from me not being able to actually envision that for myself. As enticing as it would be to see people on a more accessible schedule or play a weekly game with buddies, nothing beats talking and writing for a living. Nothing. And I am going to hang on until the lights are out, and we can’t pay to get them turned back on.
For me, I’m in too deep. I’m an indoor cat, incapable of survival outside.
Meetings. Deadlines. Reliant on other people. Meetings.
I’d be dead in a week. It’s beyond no, thank you. It’s, “I can’t”.
Sure, I have three teenagers and three college tuitions to pay. And two dogs. Two cars. And a mortgage.
Here’s where I am supposed to tell you that you should not only have thoughts about (career) death but also have a survival plan – a professional media-career living will if you would.
I should tell you that because you should.
But I don’t have one. And I don’t want one.
Because I don’t want to think about death anymore. I mean, I’ve already died twice. It wasn’t fun, and the third time most likely would be the charm in terms of getting me out of the business for good.
Why so stubborn? I don’t know.
Several times, I’ve said to myself, I need to make sure I have a backup plan … just in case. Each time, I find a reason not to get one.
Ultimately, what’s my point? Get a backup plan. Think about death. But it can’t take away from the essential joy of having the privilege of talking for a living. In that vein, don’t take it for granted. Ever. Even if the pay stinks and the schedule stinks. If you think about career death so much that it detracts from being in the moment, maybe it really is time to move on.
Brian Shactman is a weekly columnist for Barrett News Radio. In addition to writing for BNM, Brian can be heard weekday mornings in Hartford, CT on 1080 WTIC hosting the popular morning program ‘Brian & Company’. During his career, Brian has worked for ESPN, CNBC, MSNBC, and local TV channels in Connecticut and Massachusetts. You can find him on Twitter @bshactman.
Is the Fairness Doctrine Even Possible in Today’s Media Landscape?
Is it right for media consumers to judge what is “fair” and what is “unfair” news?
As many media outlets shutter their doors, some have clamored for the return of the Fairness Doctrine. Newsweek released the results of their new way to connect with readers, by asking if its reporting is “fair.” Since September 2023, readers were asked to judge stories on the site, 78% said the outlet is “fair.” Another 22% found at least one story they read to be “unfair.”
AllSides Media has judged Newsweek to be center. However, let’s not forget they are the same outlet that wrongly claimed President Donald Trump was golfing on Thanksgiving in 2019. As Sheryl Attkisson noted on Full Measure this week, on Thanksgiving in 2019 President Trump was visiting troops in Iraq and the Newsweek story was fabricated.
While the reader assessment of Newsweek’s content is on par with AllSides Media, is it right for readers to judge what is “fair” and what is “unfair” news? If outlets like The Daily Caller (Right) or Vox (Left) would ask the same of their readers, would their echo chamber subscribers find them “fair?” While historically print (and later digital) outlets could (and still can) embrace the political leanings of their owner(s), from 1949 till 1987 TV news had guidelines they must adhere to: The Fairness Doctrine.
Long before Americans argued about bias in news, every TV outlet (there were only three major ones at the time) would follow “The Fairness Doctrine.” The Reagan Library notes the doctrine was “enforced by the Federal Communications Council, [and] was rooted in the media world of 1949. Lawmakers became concerned that the monopoly audience control of the three main networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS, could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda.”
To put it simply, the Fairness Doctrine made it so all sides of any story were presented. In 1985, under the Reagan Administration, the FCC found “the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Two years later, a panel under FCC Chairman Dennis Patrick repealed the Fairness Doctrine unanimously.
Keep in mind, at this point in time, CNN was the first and only 24-hour news network in the United States (it launched on June 1, 1980). Fox News wouldn’t be launched until almost 10 years after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, on October 7, 1996.
Also happening at this time, large corporations (with lobbying power) were buying media outlets. General Electric purchased NBC in 1986. Westinghouse acquired CBS in 1995. One year later, ABC was bought by Disney. These purchases did not go unnoticed. Saturday Night Live even mocked the acquisitions in a now-banned short called “Conspiracy Theory Rock!: Media-opoly.”
The unwillingness of news organizations to cover both sides of a story has led to the creation of biased outlets including: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, OAN, Newsmax, and others. None of these would be able to exist in their current form if the Fairness Doctrine wasn’t repealed.
News outlets that aren’t overtly biased use another trick to manipulate their viewers/readers, using emotionally charged verbiage. AllSides Media defines sensationalist words as presenting information in a way that gives a shock or makes a deep impression. This includes words like “shocking”, “heart-breaking”, “explosive”, “scathing”, “chaotic”, “desperate”, and “remarkable”… this list goes on but you’ve seen and heard these words from the news outlets daily. This is the media telling you how to react to a story instead of letting you determine how you actually feel after they present the facts of the story.
Today, what’s most concerning are outlets saying ‘fair and balanced’ news is a disservice to the public. An August 2023 NPR article explored just this, saying “Objectivity actually comes from an accurate examination of facts (actions, documentation, and even educated opinions) presented in transparent reports. Often, that coverage should also encourage audiences to examine supporting evidence for themselves.”
The problem with this is three-fold:
- Selective fact presentation develops a one-sided narrative
- An “educated opinion” is not a fact. It’s an opinion that is neither right nor wrong.
- It is impossible for human beings to be completely unbiased (see January 31st column)
While it’s great Newsweek is asking readers if their reporting is ‘fair’ is the reader’s judgment neutral, or just as biased as the outlet they prefer to read? Sometimes when we are clicking to satisfy our own confirmation bias it’s hard to tell.
What the media and all Americans need to start recognizing is their own echo chamber. Knowing we all have some sort of bias is not a flaw but what makes us human. Our flaw is the inability to recognize our bias yet call out others for being biased just because they are on the other side of an issue.
Krystina Alarcon Carroll is a columnist and features writer for Barrett News Media.She currently freelances at WPIX in New York, and has previously worked on live, streamed, and syndicated TV programs. Her prior employers have included NY1, Fox News Digital, Law & Crime Network, and Newsmax. You can find Krystina on X (formerly twitter) @KrystinaAlaCarr.
CNN Sees Biggest Viewership Jump During Super Bowl Parade Shooting Coverage
All news outlets spiked upon live breaking news coverage with Fox News — already the weekday afternoon leader in cable news — leading in total viewers.
The cable news outlets got increased viewership from two different news events during the week of Feb. 12, namely the shooting at the Super Bowl parade in Kansas City.
On Wednesday, Feb. 14, of the mass shooting at the Super Bowl celebration parade in Kansas City for the Chiefs football team. One person died and roughly two dozen others were injured.
All news outlets spiked upon live breaking news coverage with Fox News — already the weekday afternoon leader in cable news — leading in total viewers.
The following are what each network drew as the story unfolded on that Feb. 14 afternoon from Kansas City and how it grew from the same Wednesday time slots from Jan. 3 thru Feb. 7:
Fox News Channel
- 3-4 p.m.: 1.656 million viewers (+18 percent)
- 4-5 p.m.: 1.873 million viewers (+34 percent)
- 5-6 p.m.: 3.175 million viewers (+7 percent)
- 6-7 p.m.: 2.441 million viewers (+12 percent)
- 7-8 p.m.: 2.250 million viewers (+4 percent)
- 3-4 p.m.: 1.008 million viewers (+10 percent)
- 4-6 p.m.: 1.504 million viewers (+7 percent)
- 6-7 p.m.: 1.763 million viewers (+17 percent)
- 7-8 p.m.: 1.474 million viewers (+13 percent)
- 3-4 p.m.: 0.762 million viewers (+27 percent)
- 4-5 p.m.: 0.913 million viewers (+35 percent)
- 5-6 p.m.: 1.007 million viewers (+28 percent)
- 6-7 p.m.: 0.985 million viewers (+43 percent)
- 7-8 p.m.: 0.960 million viewers (+29 percent)
- 4-5 p.m.: 0.343 million viewers (+23 percent)
- 5-6 p.m.: 0.354 million viewers (+16 percent)
- 7-8 p.m.: 0.547 million viewers (+13 percent)
Earlier in the week, on Tuesday, Feb. 13, the results were announced for the special election race for New York’s third congressional district between its former representative Democrat Tom Suozzi and Republican challenger Mazi Pilip. Suozzi left office in 2022 to run in the New York gubernatorial election but lost out to incumbent Kathy Hochul. Suozzi’s successor in Congress was the infamous George Santos who was officially expelled from office on Dec. 1, 2023 over charges of federal criminal laws including campaign finance fraud.
MSNBC and CNN were the only major national news outlets that provided live coverage of the special election results, stressing the significance of Suozzi’s eight-point win over Pilip as it reduced the GOP’s advantage in the House of Representatives by one.
From when the voting polls closed in New York at 9 p.m. ET, MSNBC easily topped CNN in total viewers at 9 p.m. (1.616 million viewers vs. CNN’s 0.847 million), 10 p.m. (1.903 million vs. CNN’s 0.879 million), 11 p.m. (1.112 million vs. CNN’s 0.541 million), and at midnight (774,000 viewers vs. CNN’s 299,000).
From 9-11 p.m. ET, though, both MSNBC and CNN scored the same performance among the key 25-54 demographic: a 0.15 rating at 9 p.m. and a 0.18 rating at 10 p.m. (Note: a 1.0 rating in 25-54 equates to 1.21 million viewers within the aforementioned age range.)
For the 10-11 p.m. hour, when the New York candidate speeches had aired, CNN grew by 68 percent (in viewers) and by 80 percent (in 25-54) from its Tuesday 10-11 p.m. hour output from Jan. 2 thru Feb. 6 — a time period that included a Ron DeSantis town hall and New Hampshire primary results.
MSNBC was up as well at 10 p.m. hour — +16 percent in viewers, +33 percent in the 25-54 demo — using the same reference parameters.
Even though Fox News did not offer live coverage of New York’s special election results, Hannity at 9 p.m. (2.528 million viewers; 0.21 A25-54 demo rating) and Gutfeld! at 10 p. m. (2.357 million viewers; 0.31 A25-54 demo rating) still held the top spots in their respective hours on all of cable news.
Source: Nielsen Media Research
Douglas Pucci is a Bronx native and NYU graduate analyzing news television ratings for Barrett News Media. He did an internship at VH1’s “Pop Up Video” in 1997. After college, Pucci went on to design, build and maintain websites for various non-profit organizations in his hometown of New York City. He has worked alongside media industry observer Marc Berman for over a decade reporting on all things television, first at Cross MediaWorks from 2011-15 then at Programming Insider since 2016. Pucci also contributed to the sports website Awful Announcing. Read more: https://programminginsider.com/author/douglas/