Cable Television

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Deal Talks Between Paramount and Skydance Heat Up

      by

      David Ellison, the founder of the Skydance media company, met with Paramount’s board of directors late last month to discuss the deal.Shari Redstone is getting one step closer to selling her media empire.Paramount, home to one of Hollywood’s most storied movie studios as well as CBS and cable networks like Nickelodeon, has been discussing entering into exclusive talks with the media company Skydance for a potential deal, according to four people with knowledge of the discussions. Moving to exclusive talks would be a significant step forward in a process that has been shrouded in uncertainty for months.Whether the two sides will agree to exclusivity remains to be seen, especially with other investors still pursuing Paramount. Apollo Global Management, an investment firm with more than $500 billion under management, has submitted an $11 billion offer to acquire the Paramount movie studio. Paramount’s board of directors, though, is seeking a deal for the entire company — including its cable channels and CBS — rather than pieces.Apollo continues to evaluate what proposal might most appeal to the company’s board, two people familiar with the situation said. Byron Allen, whose Entertainment Studios owns the Weather Channel, has also expressed interest in acquiring Paramount.Ms. Redstone, the controlling shareholder of Paramount, began negotiating with Skydance to sell her stake in the company last year. She controls Paramount through National Amusements, a holding company that owns her voting stock in Paramount. Ms. Redstone has held off on a sale for years, betting that the company’s fortunes would improve as its flagship streaming service, Paramount+, gained momentum.The terms of the deal being discussed would involve Skydance’s buying National Amusements and merging with Paramount. That deal hinges on approval from Paramount’s board, which has for weeks been weighing its options with the help of advisers.Late last month, David Ellison, the tech scion who founded Skydance, met with Paramount’s board committee to discuss his vision for a deal, according to two of the people familiar with the talks. Founded in 2010, Skydance is best known for shepherding blockbusters for Paramount, including movies in the “Mission: Impossible” and “Top Gun” franchises.Representatives for Paramount and Skydance declined to comment, and the financial terms of the deal couldn’t be learned.Paramount’s stock has fallen 18 percent since the start of the year amid headwinds for the media industry. The company is trading at a steep discount to the combined value of Viacom and CBS, which merged to form Paramount in 2019. Paramount+ is still losing money, but its losses have slowed and it continues to add subscribers.The ratings agency S&P Global downgraded Paramount’s debt to junk last week, citing “accelerating declines” in its traditional television business and continued uncertainty in its push toward streaming. Some analysts said that ratings action might make Paramount easier to acquire, since it could circumnavigate a provision that would require a buyer to immediately pay the company’s debt. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      For Cesar Conde, NBC’s News Chief, Corporate Polish Meets Partisan Reality

      by

      Cesar Conde, a leader with an M.B.A. but a limited journalism background, is facing the toughest scrutiny of his career.Cesar Conde is not the typical leader of a major news institution.A Wharton-trained executive who revived the fortunes of Telemundo and sits on the boards of Pepsi and Walmart, Mr. Conde had limited experience in journalism when, in 2020, he became the chairman of NBC’s sprawling news division, including MSNBC, CNBC and franchises like “Meet the Press,” “Nightly News” and the “Today” show.Now he is trying to navigate the biggest crisis of his tenure: a journalistic firestorm that prompted an open revolt among his stars and has fueled internal questions about just how neatly Mr. Conde’s corporate experience and ambitions gel with the unique challenges of the news business.The rapid hiring and dismissal of Ronna McDaniel, the former chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, stunned network journalists over the past week, with many asking why Mr. Conde and his deputies had brought on someone who had vilified NBC and advanced former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.The blowback facing Mr. Conde, 50, a former fellow in George W. Bush’s White House who prides himself on having an even-keeled, nonpartisan reputation, is coming from both sides of the aisle. Left-leaning fans of MSNBC felt betrayed, and Republican officials are mocking NBC as biased, even threatening to bar its reporters from this summer’s nominating convention.At elite retreats like the Aspen Ideas Festival, Mr. Conde, who declined to be interviewed, likes to say he runs “the largest news organization in the country.” As he heads into the scrutiny of a general-election campaign, he is discovering just how hard that job can be.Two of Mr. Conde’s newsroom leaders — Rebecca Blumenstein, the NBC News president of editorial, and Carrie Budoff Brown, who oversees political coverage — recommended Ms. McDaniel to Mr. Conde; Rashida Jones, the MSNBC president, also signed off, according to two people familiar with the discussions. Mr. Conde trusted the judgment of his top journalists, the people said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ronna McDaniel and NBC Saga: The Perks and Perils of Partisan Talk on TV

      by

      Why are television news networks so enamored with paid Beltway analysts?Trying to juice ratings in an election year, a major TV network hired a pair of provocative commentators from the political establishment to inject some spiky opinion into its otherwise-staid campaign coverage.The result — the Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. debates of 1968 — was a hit with viewers and an unexpected success for ABC News. It also inspired television news divisions to bring more partisan voices into their coverage, a trend that intensified at the dawn of the 24-hour cable news era in the early 1980s.These days, the role of the “paid contributor” — a commentator on contract, to bloviate on demand — is fully baked into the TV news ecosystem. Typically, the role is occupied by a political veteran who can offer an insider perspective on the news of the day, drawing on experience as, say, an elected official, Beltway strategist or West Wing aide.Or, in the case of Ronna McDaniel, as the former chairwoman of the Republican Party.Ms. McDaniel’s tenure as a paid contributor at NBC News was less successful than those of many of her peers. (Her two immediate predecessors as Republican leader, Michael Steele and Reince Priebus, work for MSNBC and ABC News.) Her hiring led to an open revolt by NBC and MSNBC stars, who said it was disqualifying that Ms. McDaniel had been involved in former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to undermine the 2020 election results.She was ousted by NBC on Tuesday, four days after she started. Ms. McDaniel, whose deal was worth $300,000 annually, is now seeking to be paid at least $600,000 for the two years she signed up for, according to a person familiar with her plans.The episode prompted angst inside NBC News, where journalists and producers on Wednesday were still puzzling over their bosses’ handling of the situation, according to several people who requested anonymity to discuss private discussions.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Gerald M. Levin, Time Warner Chief in a Merger Debacle, Dies at 84

      by

      He was called a visionary in cable television, but his foray into the world of the internet, in a marriage with AOL, proved disastrous.Gerald M. Levin, a “visionary” media executive, as he was often described, who became C.E.O. of the world’s largest media company, Time Warner, and an architect of its merger with America Online, widely considered the worst corporate marriage in American history, died on Wednesday. He was 84.Jake Maia Arlow, a grandchild of Mr. Levin’s, confirmed the death, in a hospital, and said he lived in Long Beach, Calif. No other details were provided. Mr. Levin had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.Mr. Levin was Time Warner’s chief executive when he and his counterpart at AOL at the time, Steve Case, devised what was then the largest business merger in U.S. history. When the deal was announced on Jan. 10, 2000, Time Warner was the world’s largest media company, and America Online was the largest internet company, with a combined market value of roughly $342 billion (the equivalent of about $600 billion today).The merger, creating AOL Time Warner, was heralded as a watershed moment — the union of old and new media, a storied 20th-century American company whose origins could be traced to the publishing baron Henry Luce and the Hollywood boss Jack Warner, hitching up with a Virginia tech company for a ride into the World Wide Web. Instead, it became shorthand for the excesses of the turn-of-the-century dot-com bubble and the era of so-called synergy.Richard Parsons, who succeeded Mr. Levin as chief executive of AOL Time Warner in 2002, said in a phone interview for this obituary in 2022 that Mr. Levin was “one of the smartest guys in the media and entertainment space,” a “visionary” who saw the digital wave coming and understood how the internet would transform Time Warner’s business.“He saw the merger with AOL as making Time Warner digital by injection,” Mr. Parsons said. “What AOL brought to the party was instant access and competence in terms of how to access the internet world.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Sunday Read: ‘How Tom Sandoval Became the Most Hated Man in America’

      by

      Adrienne Hurst and Sophia Lanman and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | SpotifyAt the end of a quiet, leafy street in the Valley in Los Angeles, the reality TV star Tom Sandoval has outfitted his home with landscaping lights that rotate in a spectrum of colors, mimicking the dance floor of a nightclub. The property is both his private residence and an occasional TV set for the Bravo reality show “Vanderpump Rules.” After a series of events that came to be known as “Scandoval,” paparazzi had been camped outside, but by the new year it was just one or two guys, and now they have mostly gone, too.“Scandoval” is the nickname for Sandoval’s affair with another cast member, which he had behind the backs of the show’s producers and his girlfriend of nine years. This wouldn’t be interesting or noteworthy except that in 2023, after being on the air for 10 seasons, “Vanderpump” was nominated for an Emmy for outstanding unstructured reality program, an honor that has never been bestowed on any of the network’s “Housewives” shows. It also became, by a key metric, the most-watched cable series in the advertiser-beloved demographic of 18- to 49-year-olds and brought in over 12.2 million viewers. This happened last spring, when Hollywood’s TV writers went on strike and cable TV was declared dead and our culture had already become so fractured that it was rare for anything — let alone an episode of television — to become a national event. And yet you probably heard about “Scandoval” even if you couldn’t care less about who these people are, exactly.As “Vanderpump” airs its 11th season, Tom Sandoval reflects on his new public persona.There are a lot of ways to listen to ‘The Daily.’ Here’s how.We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Follow Michael Barbaro on X: @mikiebarb. And if you’re interested in advertising with The Daily, write to us at thedaily-ads@nytimes.com.Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Isabella Anderson, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Elena Hecht, Emma Kehlbeck, Tanya Pérez and Krish Seenivasan. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Paramount Lays Off Hundreds of Workers

      by

      The company, which is moving away from traditional TV, lost more than $1 billion last year at its streaming division.Paramount, the owner of TV networks like Nickelodeon, MTV and Comedy Central, is laying off hundreds of employees, cutting costs as it continues its painful transition away from traditional television.About 3 percent of the company’s roughly 24,500 employees will be affected by the layoffs, according to a person familiar with the cuts, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive corporate information.Bob Bakish, Paramount’s chief executive, said in a memo to employees that the cuts were part of a bid to “return the company to earnings growth.”“While I realize these changes are in no way easy, as I said last month, I am confident this is the right decision for our future,” Mr. Bakish wrote. “These adjustments will help enable us to build on our momentum and execute our strategic vision for the year ahead — and I firmly believe we have much to be excited about.”Paramount is at a crossroads. The company’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, is considering selling her stake in the company, a deal that could bring decades of family ownership to an end. Skydance, the media company that helped produce Paramount franchises like “Top Gun” and “Mission Impossible,” has expressed interest, but no deal has yet materialized.Like all its peers in traditional media, Paramount has struggled to keep pace with Netflix as streaming services supplant traditional TV and moviegoing. The company’s biggest streaming service, Paramount+, has not yet become profitable, putting a drag on the company’s profits. Paramount’s streaming division, which also includes the ad-supported service Pluto TV, lost more than $1 billion last year.Though viewership of Paramount’s cable networks is in decline, parts of its TV business remain resilient. Paramount’s CBS network, which broadcast the Super Bowl on Sunday, generated record ratings for the game, which saw the Kansas City Chief defeat the San Francisco 49ers in overtime. About 123.4 million people watched the game, according to Nielsen, up from 115.1 million the year before. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Americans Might Tune Out the Trump Show Reboot

      by

      In crude material terms, Donald Trump’s presidency benefited the media, with subscriptions, ratings and clicks all soaring. It’s therefore not surprising that lots of people believe his return to the center of our politics will once again generate obsessive interest. “When Trump Wins, So Does the Media,” the center-left writer Matthew Yglesias wrote in October. The Washington Post’s Philip Bump recently predicted that because of Trump’s presidential campaign, “cable news channels may soon see a resurgence.” Even warnings about the manifold ways a second Trump presidency could damage a free press tend to assume that four more years of MAGA pandemonium would be lucrative. The business model behind our ailing industry, wrote George Packer in The Atlantic, “works better with Trump.”I’m not so sure this is true anymore. A few overarching questions animated Trump’s first term: Can he really get away with this? When will Republicans break with him? Will the law ever catch up? In a second Trump presidency, those questions would be answered. (Yes, never and no.) The constant hope that Trump could be exposed and even ousted would be gone. Thus among liberals, I suspect, the anxious hypervigilance sparked by Trump’s first election would be replaced, at least initially, by depression. In 2019, Viv Groskop wrote in The New York Review of Books about how some in Vladimir Putin’s Russia had resurrected the Soviet idea of internal exile or internal emigration, a disillusioned retreat from politics into private life and aesthetic satisfactions. If Trump is re-elected, I’d expect to see a lot of Americans adopting a similar stance as an emotional survival strategy. If that happens, the danger won’t be just to bottom lines in the news business. Though Trump thrives on attention, he’d be even more destructive without the pressure of sustained public outrage.The Atlantic writer Jennifer Senior recently described the twitchy psychic landscape of the Trump-era liberal news fanatic: “I’d spent nearly five years scanning the veld for threats, indulging in the most neurotic form of magical thinking, convinced that my monitoring of Twitter alone was what stood between Trump and national ruin.” Such compulsive news consumers were a huge factor in the Trump-era journalism boom. “The increase that news organizations saw in terms of audience engagement during the first Trump administration, a lot of that was driven by people who consume a lot of news. They were just consuming more and more and more of it,” said Benjamin Toff, a journalism professor and an author of the new book “Avoiding the News.” “But a lot of the rest of the public, I think, was pretty disengaged from it.”Since then, the ranks of the disengaged have grown. Trump keeps doing appalling things: In just the past couple of days, he nearly got thrown out of the second defamation trial brought against him by a woman he sexually abused, according to a jury, and then claimed on social media that presidents should enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution even when they “cross the line.” But his misdeeds have lost the capacity to shock, and they no longer drive conversations. That might change if he is once again president, but like a virus, he won’t generate as strong a reaction when he’s no longer novel.People who avoid the news, said Toff, tend to believe that nothing they do can change it. By contrast, the people who joined the Trump resistance had a great sense of personal efficacy. They poured into politics and organizing, sure that they had the power to mitigate the catastrophe of Trump’s election. But now, everywhere I look, I see a terrifying resignation. A potentially significant number of people on the left, particularly young ones, believe that because President Biden has disappointed them, it’s not worth voting for him to head off a Trump restoration. (Online, some have even adopted the sarcastic right-wing phrase “orange man bad,” meant to dismiss liberal revulsion against him.) Some centrist plutocrats have also made their peace with a Trump return. “U.S. Executives in Davos See a Trump Victory in 2024, and No Cause for Concern,” says a CNBC headline. As Jonathan Chait wrote recently, holding the anti-Trump coalition together “required maintaining a level of focus and willpower that has simply given out.” Who is going to want to be glued to the news of that failure?Obviously, as a journalist, I have a vested interest in people caring about the news, but what really scares me is less the decline of profits in my industry than growing numbness and despair in the face of possible political calamity. I keep thinking of the early 1970s, another period when broad-based, idealistic social movements had recently fragmented, with some turning toward a militant sectarianism while others withdrew from politics, seeking self-realization in lifestyle experimentation. “Having no hope of improving their lives in any of the ways that matter, people have convinced themselves that what matters is psychic self-improvement: getting in touch with their feelings, eating health food, taking lessons in ballet or belly-dancing, immersing themselves in the wisdom of the East, jogging, learning how to ‘relate,’ overcoming the ‘fear of pleasure,’” wrote Christopher Lasch in his 1979 book, “The Culture of Narcissism.” It wouldn’t be surprising if people react to another Trump presidency in a similar fashion. (Already both psychedelics and polyamory are back in a big way.) The reboot of the Trump show would be a lot darker than the original. People who value their equanimity might decide it’s not worth watching.Do you have a question for Michelle Goldberg about this column?Please submit it below. She will be responding to a selection of readers in a future piece. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Vivek Ramaswamy Stops TV Ad Spending

      by

      The campaign’s abrupt shift, focusing on other voter outreach efforts, reflects a significant change in strategy less than three weeks before the Iowa caucuses.Vivek Ramaswamy, the wealthy entrepreneur seeking the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, has stopped spending money on cable television ads, a campaign representative said on Tuesday.With just weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses kick off the voting for the nomination, Mr. Ramaswamy’s campaign is maintaining its total advertising outlays, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the campaign, said. However, it is shifting away from traditional television toward other methods of voter outreach for a “higher return on investment,” she added. NBC News first reported the campaign’s halt in TV ad spending.“We’re just following the data,” Ms. McLaughlin said in a statement, adding that “we are focused on bringing out the voters we’ve identified — best way to reach them is using addressable advertising, mail, text, live calls and doors to communicate with our voters.”She pointed out the huge sums that have already been sunk into the presidential campaign, saying that “$190 million in traditional advertising has been spent in this race nationally. Polls have barely changed.”It is nevertheless an abrupt shift in strategy for Mr. Ramaswamy’s campaign, which has spent millions on advertising. The Ramaswamy campaign reserved about $1 million in television ads in Iowa last month — nearly double what his campaign and an allied super PAC spent in the prior month.But Mr. Ramaswamy has struggled to make headway in Iowa, despite the intense spending and a packed schedule of campaign appearances. He estimated to reporters last month that he had spent around $20 million on his run to that point.He maintains a distant fourth place in state polls, with less than 10 percent support. His approval ratings among Republicans nationally have also steadily declined since September, and his disapproval ratings among all Americans hit a new peak in national polls.He has recently pushed right-wing conspiracy theories in campaign appearances. He has called the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol an “inside job,” claimed that the 2020 election was stolen by “big tech” and suggested that the “great replacement theory” was Democratic policy.Ms. McLaughlin noted that the Ramaswamy campaign would continue to field some ads through digital television providers — for example, YouTube TV. More