Time Warner Cable now charging specifically for foreign news channels

[dusmcj]

Ever since Al Gore bought NWI and turned it into hip gen-X idiot pablum, one of the few "reliable" news sources in the vast palette of channels offered by Time Warner digital cable service has been CNN international. Insofar as it actually delivers news, instead of a heavy rotation of useful segments on how to cross the street, tie your shoelaces, and recognize the authority of material power.

Now TWC is planning on charging for 'foreign' news services according to its new rate plan/subscriber brochure. The brochure is conveniently unclear on what channels actually constitute this rubric, but it appears that CNN International and DW TV will be among them.

We have always known that TW was a lackey of the bourgeoisie; it was clear from the look of disgust on Ted Turner's face when he appeared at the joint news conference to 'celebrate' handing over his creation to them and becoming an impo(r)t(a/e)nt member of a corporate structure in return. They confirmed it by turning the domestic service into a pipeline gushing content-free infotainment with a heavy emphasis on "emotional responses" and a faithful repetition (again in heavy rotation) of pieces which suggest that the government's point of view is really the one we all ought to hew to if we don't want to be disobedient children. Parasite members of the neoliberal establishment (same as it ever was) in other words.

But I preach to the converted with such words here at DU. We do ask ourselves whether the extra $10 we are supposed to fork over per month to get actual news content (imported since our own media have successfully been discouraged - by whom ? enquiring minds want to know. I think I'll sik the National Enquirer on the story, they'll do a good job on it - from providing it) is a deliberate attempt at a slap in the face to those in this country who are not yet Connected and Under Control, following Natural Law and feeling Confident, Firm and Positive (not to mention fresh and dry) as a result.

[CatholicEdHead]

1. I still get DW on my Cable but they dropped CNN International

I wish I could get that, it is much needed on the cable dial. Headline News, CNN Domestic, Faux, and MSBNC do not cut it.

[Trillo]

2. Simply, it bothers me that any channel with advertisements

isn't free, and that any paid channel isn't free of advertisements.

[onenote]

3. why? Magazines and newspapers have ads and charge subscriptions

onenote

[Trillo]

4. apples and oranges, with respect towards supply

as well as somewhat different demand. TV probably has the largest potential demand (one doesn't need to be able to read), and it's certainly the most limiting with respect to supply. Special, expensive licenses and equipment is required to legally broadcast.

When limited to a small supply, such as TV broadcast news, I propose:
1)When only advertisers pay for news, the news tends to reflect the advertiser's bias.
2)When only subscribers pay for news, the news would tend to reflect the biases of its subscribers.
3)When both advertisers and subscribers pay for news, I would expect bias confusion.

I would further expect in all of the cases above a mix of facts to be evident but the ratio of bias to fact might not be constant. For example, does a single large advertiser and no paid subscription requred affect bias to a greater degree than no advertiser and hundreds to millions of paying subscribers and their varying and common biases?

Simply, I don't like to be confused, so #3 is the source where I'm most likely to suspect ulterior motive and be either skeptical or cynical. I believe that option #2 gives viewers the most confidence toward the minimization of bias in reporting facts, but with #1 you at least know that there's a powerful bias at work, that bias identification is absent in the confusion of #3.

How does Product Placement work in the broadcast news industry? Is it anything like the term spin?

[Cleita]

5. That's not fair.

We know that print journals survive on their advertisers. The price you pay for a journal is the price of the ink, paper and postage if that's involved. Of course journals have to have a large subscription list, so that the advertisers know that they are reaching the largest demography that they can for their money.

[onenote]

6. why is it not fair

there are print media that are given away free, relying only on advertising. There are print media that do not carry ads and rely entirely on subscriptions. And there is print media that relies on both. The same is true in the television (and now radio) world).

The fact that "print journals survive on their advertisers" doesn't negate the fact that those that charge a subscription fee obviously feel the need to do so from an economic standpoint. The same is true for cable networks that rely on dual revenue streams. Increasingly, even broadcasters rely on dual streams of revenue, charging advertisers and also charging cable/satellilte providers who want to retransmit their signals.

onenote

[Armstead]

7. If you have a decent cable coinnection you can get a lot of foreign TV

BBC News, the CBC and a number of other respected international broadcasters put a lot of news content on nthe web for free these days.

It's my source for The National from CBC now.And BBC puts newscasts and documentaries and discussion shows on the web.

It sucks that cable news is so bad. But at least these days there are alternatives on the net.

[Ksec]

8. Cable raising rates? Now theres a rarity.

I suggest free cable. Just steal it from yer neighbors and fk em.