4 ms·

Lot of comparison to Fox and MSNBC. But what about Bloomberg or CNBC. Lot of times it seems like the financial news is resistant to BS, because people want to

Lot of comparison to Fox and MSNBC. But what about Bloomberg or CNBC. Lot of times it seems like the financial news is resistant to BS, because people want to know what is really happening to invest real money. Why couldn't CNN follow that format, just lots of real, but more minor, news. Sure, not every interview with a CEO of a small company in Indonesia is super important, but it tends to be more realistic and can be interesting.

epc 3y ago
Doesn't generate the ratings necessary to pay for a worldwide news team (which CNN hasn't had for years).
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  How does Bloomberg pay for it? Is it as a loss-leader as some indicate, maybe to sell other Bloomberg products? Or is it difference in news, Bloomberg has lot more advertisers to financial markets interviewing CEO's, then a CNN would get interviewing Diplomats. Where Bloomberg interviews all levels of CEO's and analysis, why can't CNN interview Diplomats from around the world, or scientists, or there are tons of people that want to talk. And interviews don't take that much overhead. --- I think I agree with other sentiment here, there is a lot of news to report, it can be interesting.
  - tracker1 3y ago
    I think it's largely about balancing the spend with the income. CNN simply spends more money on highly paid "talent" than the business model can support. They simply exist due to cable fees and probably given excess in terms of their actual contribution.
  - epc 3y ago
    Absolutely a loss leader for Bloomberg. Whatever advertising they get is de minimis, I frequently see house ads for multiple hours when I have it on in the morning. It's subsidized by subscriptions to the terminal. I don't know CNBC financials but it has higher ratings than Bloomberg TV and has the heft and drag of NBC to pull it into cable lineups. As for CNN…its first twenty years or so were mostly great hard core news from around the world. A real shift happened post 2000, whether that was due to the cataclysmic AOL Time Warner merger/demerger or changing attitudes or just the rise of Fox News but CNN gradually then rapidly morphed away from hard news to fluffy content and politics 7x24. It used to be that you could watch Headline News to catch up on what's going on in 5-10 minutes and then CNN for more in depth coverage. HNN stopped being useful early in the 2000s. CNNfn was ok for the few years it existed but CNN didn't have the financial news depth that CNBC had.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      absolutely, I miss HNN, that used to be my morning routine. then at some point HNN turned into a dumping ground for re-runs and true-crime drama.
wnc3141 3y ago
mad money and the SPAC shills on these financial networks is as BS as anything else.

epc 3y ago

Doesn't generate the ratings necessary to pay for a worldwide news team (which CNN hasn't had for years).

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
How does Bloomberg pay for it? Is it as a loss-leader as some indicate, maybe to sell other Bloomberg products? Or is it difference in news, Bloomberg has lot more advertisers to financial markets interviewing CEO's, then a CNN would get interviewing Diplomats. Where Bloomberg interviews all levels of CEO's and analysis, why can't CNN interview Diplomats from around the world, or scientists, or there are tons of people that want to talk. And interviews don't take that much overhead. --- I think I agree with other sentiment here, there is a lot of news to report, it can be interesting.
- tracker1 3y ago
  I think it's largely about balancing the spend with the income. CNN simply spends more money on highly paid "talent" than the business model can support. They simply exist due to cable fees and probably given excess in terms of their actual contribution.
- epc 3y ago
  Absolutely a loss leader for Bloomberg. Whatever advertising they get is de minimis, I frequently see house ads for multiple hours when I have it on in the morning. It's subsidized by subscriptions to the terminal. I don't know CNBC financials but it has higher ratings than Bloomberg TV and has the heft and drag of NBC to pull it into cable lineups. As for CNN…its first twenty years or so were mostly great hard core news from around the world. A real shift happened post 2000, whether that was due to the cataclysmic AOL Time Warner merger/demerger or changing attitudes or just the rise of Fox News but CNN gradually then rapidly morphed away from hard news to fluffy content and politics 7x24. It used to be that you could watch Headline News to catch up on what's going on in 5-10 minutes and then CNN for more in depth coverage. HNN stopped being useful early in the 2000s. CNNfn was ok for the few years it existed but CNN didn't have the financial news depth that CNBC had.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    absolutely, I miss HNN, that used to be my morning routine. then at some point HNN turned into a dumping ground for re-runs and true-crime drama.

wnc3141 3y ago

mad money and the SPAC shills on these financial networks is as BS as anything else.