General Discussion

onenote

(46,135 posts)

61. Yes TV. TV news has always been a revenue source for stations and networks

Fri Apr 20, 2012, 10:22 AM

Apr 2012

While in the early days of television, news programming may not have been a major profit center, it always was a revenue source. News shows contained advertising. Indeed, the very first TV news show, Camel News Caravan was named for its sponsor, Camel Cigarettes. The Huntley-Brinkley Report was, for a time, known as the Texaco Huntley Brinkley Report.

The fact that TV news wasn't a big profit center had more to do with the fact that, in the early days of television, news programming drew small audiences. It was far from being the source of most peoples' news. The early shows were only 15 minutes long and didn't expand to 1/2 hour until the 1960s.

As the audience for tv news grew, so did its profit potential. But the idea that tv news was presented on a non-revenue basis is factually wrong. The networks would have loved to make more money on the news and when the opportunity presented it to do so, they took it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Agrees to Reconsider Citizens United [View all] Tx4obama Apr 2012 OP

it's ironic that if anything undermines Citizens United, it will be... mike_c Apr 2012 #1

IT'S A TRAP!!!! Ian David Apr 2012 #2

Why does a picture of Gingrich say 'It's a trap"? Kablooie Apr 2012 #22

That's unfair. bleever Apr 2012 #42

Only if by military, you mean crime syndicate. laconicsax Apr 2012 #48

Admiral Akbar is more handsome than Newt Gingrich thelordofhell Apr 2012 #52

They'll uphold it 5-4. MrSlayer Apr 2012 #3

Someone should track how the family members of the judges are doing. Baitball Blogger Apr 2012 #11

mmmmmmmmmm Skittles Apr 2012 #20

Sorry hon, it won't ever happen lark Apr 2012 #43

yeah I know Skittles Apr 2012 #54

Yes, someone would have to admit they made a mistake. A Simple Game Apr 2012 #24

The Supreme Corporation of the United States will use this case to strengthen it ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2012 #4

Holy shit. aquart Apr 2012 #5

Calling Stephen Colbert..... tanyev Apr 2012 #6

He has become the 21st Century Court Jester cr8tvlde Apr 2012 #8

They thought it was good used against Democrats HooptieWagon Apr 2012 #7

True, but some of us thought it over and done cr8tvlde Apr 2012 #9

I certainly hope so. HooptieWagon Apr 2012 #13

Look what Adelson all by himself did for Gingrich. Ikonoklast Apr 2012 #44

A better headline would be: Supreme Court Gets a Chance to Extend Citizens United to State Level. Fool Count Apr 2012 #10

Unless the Dems hope another jackass ruling will make the SCOTUS a hot topic in this fall's McCamy Taylor Apr 2012 #26

SCOTUS conservatives doing the right thing? Ha! Never happen. They don't give a shit neverforget Apr 2012 #12

For Christ sakes, don't jump to conclusions longship Apr 2012 #14

And a tribute to the movement state by state to nail down their AG's on this issue: freshwest Apr 2012 #18

Bingo! Precisely. longship Apr 2012 #21

Signed nt duhneece Apr 2012 #33

Kudos to Montana! freshwest Apr 2012 #15

How many times to get it right? izquierdista Apr 2012 #16

k&r... spanone Apr 2012 #17

Now the contributions will tax deductible. briv1016 Apr 2012 #19

What really needs to happen is for corporations to be declared non-persons loudsue Apr 2012 #23

BS The Gang of 5 will use it to usurp state laws. Next election Super pacs in China will be funding McCamy Taylor Apr 2012 #25

Want to do something? RobertEarl Apr 2012 #27

No one here has yet suggested a good solution. eallen Apr 2012 #28

If your answers to the two questions above differ AlbertCat Apr 2012 #34

Yes, Citizens United was in the publishing business eallen Apr 2012 #36

Your logic is flawed. blackspade Apr 2012 #35

The NYT also publishes unsigned editorials eallen Apr 2012 #37

So you are not actually going to address my reply. blackspade Apr 2012 #40

What makes CU, Inc, NOT a media outfit? eallen Apr 2012 #47

You are either missing my point or ignoring it. blackspade Apr 2012 #55

How are those points relevant? eallen Apr 2012 #56

Citizen United is about treating money as speech. blackspade Apr 2012 #57

The CU case was about a corporation that made a movie and wanted to distribute it. eallen Apr 2012 #58

I think that legal constructs like corporations should be limited by charter to what their reach and TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #39

The history of the newspaper industry rebuts your claim about news being non-profit, non-revenue onenote Apr 2012 #41

But not TV, the source of most peoples news (if any) TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #60

Yes TV. TV news has always been a revenue source for stations and networks onenote Apr 2012 #61

So a Republican administration could remand NYT's charter? eallen Apr 2012 #49

Neither, though either or both might be granted such liberty TheKentuckian Apr 2012 #59

When they do reconsider it, they need to make sure that Clarence Thomas, sabrina 1 Apr 2012 #29

I wish progressoid Apr 2012 #30

Me neither. He has never recused himself when he has had a conflict of interest. sabrina 1 Apr 2012 #31

Too bad this thread wasn't about a dead artist, a dead religious figure, or a bad jury decision. Major Hogwash Apr 2012 #32

Oy otohara Apr 2012 #51

I think the article jumps the gun. onenote Apr 2012 #38

Thank you Montana ! KurtNYC Apr 2012 #45

Given how the SCOTUS currently does things... Prophet 451 Apr 2012 #46

I would be very cautious of reading too much into this...... Swede Atlanta Apr 2012 #50

HELL has indeed FROZEN OVER. ~nt 99th_Monkey Apr 2012 #53

Groovy! Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #62