You Have the Power: MSM

Networks like CNN have a powerful voice when it comes to presenting information. Unfortunately, they don't always act responsibly with that voice. You have the power to change it. Here's how.

Trust in institutions is breaking down. Can you feel it? I think most of us can at this point. Governance, corporate elites, mainstream press, money as we understand it... all of these things are having deep trust issues among the populace. It's never been more clear to normal, everyday people how stacked the deck has been against them for quite some time. Trust in each of the institutions mentioned has largely fallen apart in recent years. And no, we can't just blame it all on the orange boogeyman. These trends started long before the arrival of the reality star in chief. In many ways, Trump's incomprehensible rise to the top of the political apparatus is a symptom of this lack of trust in institutions.

While it might appear hopeless to have so many large systemic players seemingly working together, and against you, I'm going to theorize that it is you who actually has the power against each of these systemic behemoths. It might not feel like it, but you do. Over the course of the next few weeks, we're going to look at some of these established monsters and dissect just how you have the power and what you can do with that power to create change.

In Part 1 of this series, we're going to explore the wonderful world of American mainstream media. Often considered by the right to be in the bag for the left, the mainstream news media has been a punching bag for a pretty long time. A recent Gallup poll showed the level of trust from the public to be, frankly, abysmal. When you break the trust down by political affiliation, it's an interesting story.

Republicans are now flirting with a single digit mass media trust percentage. Democrats seem very content with the abilities from the press. Like many things that are framed as black and white, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle for this exercise as well. Lucky for us, we have political independents. And if you can believe it, independents don't really trust mass media either.

The obvious question becomes, "why do independents and republicans feel this way?" While I won't take a stab at speaking on behalf of republicans, as an independent myself, I can safely say that situations like CNN's recent handling of Joe Rogan really, REALLY pisses people off. If you're unfamiliar with the situation, Russell Brand does a nice job explaining the Joe Rogan/CNN kerfuffle AND the dilemma of running a for-profit news entity in the following video.

I'd invite you to watch the entire clip above if you just passed over it. I've admitted on my own podcast and on this blog that Russell Brand has done an amazing job shifting my perspective on is thoughtfulness and political stance over the last year or so. And that is on display yet again in the video above. But for a TLDR version, this is the money quote from Brand near the end:

“You should look at news sources that are outside this matrix of treachery because it's there in order to accept advertising and lobbying money from established corporate sources. Which means it has to operate compliantly and in alliance with the government. You're not going to get honest information from those sources.”

Russell Brand

The dilemma

I'd wager anyone who has gone to school to be in communications has probably taken at least one course on journalism. I did. And I never planned to be a "journalist." Even still, I remember taking these kinds of courses as a communications major back in 2005. I remember having instructors present this dilemma very well. Our coursework literally posed questions with hypothetical situations to gauge how we'd react. For instance, you're covering an oil spill at a nearby pipeline and it has been devastating to wildlife in the area. The owner of the pipeline is a big advertiser for your network and has asked you to downplay the effects of the accident. What do you do?

As we can plainly see from the rhetoric fed to us by teleprompter readers like Don Lemon, some of the top personalities in cable news would fail this exercise. This ethical dilemma in media is why we've seen the rise of subscription platforms like Substack and Patreon. Some of the best content creators out there are becoming more aware of the direct to consumer model. Glenn Greenwald understands this. As does Alex Berenson. When you're beholden to your actual audience for revenue rather than advertisers who subsidize the product for your audience, you naturally have to do a better job. You will naturally make better content. You will naturally be more fair in your coverage.

But what's funny about all of this is very few consumers of media actually realize how powerful they currently are. The video making the rounds a few weeks ago is the "sponsored by Pfizer" reel. If you haven't seen it, have fun. I don't know how much of CNN's advertising revenue comes from Pfizer. But I do know that American pay-tv subscribers might actually have more influence over CNN than Pfizer does. Don't believe me? Let's dig into the numbers.

"Subscription" revenue is already massive

According to Kagan, a division of S&P Global Market Intelligence that focuses on media, CNN's total revenue in 2020 was just under $1.7 billion. Now, while that doesn't give us much context on the surface, Kagan provides some breakout data that I find very interesting. Did you know, of CNN's $1.7 billion in total revenue last year, only $628 million of it actually came from advertising? It's true. How could this be? CNN's largest revenue bucket is actually "license fee" revenue. What is a license fee? It's the cut that CNN gets from all of the pay tv companies that carry the network.

Dish Network, DirecTV, Spectrum, Xfinity, and Cox. If you're paying for satellite or cable, you are paying CNN whether you watch the network or not. And yes, that includes the vMVPD providers like Hulu Live, YouTubeTV, and Sling. If you're able to watch CNN with your TV or streaming service, part of your monthly subscription fee is going directly to CNN. And if we do simple math with Kagan's data, we find out the share of CNN's total revenue coming from subscription fees has averaged about 63% over the last decade. Now that we know that, we can see that US consumers are paying CNN more than Pfizer is.

To borrow from the dying words of Sean Connery's Jim Malone, "what are you prepared to do?"

If you're already a cord cutter or have never paid for TV, you don't have as much power to make change as those who still are. But to the 74 million of you who are still paying CNN, if you don't approve of how CNN reports the news, simply not watching CNN's programming isn't enough. You might want to consider cutting them out of your monthly budget entirely by cutting your TV service.

US pay TV subscribers in millions

The trend in pay TV reduction is not going to slow down. CNN is going to have to face the music at some point. There are roughly 74 million households currently paying CNN yet the network averages fewer than a million viewers most nights. Much like ESPN, CNN's business model is highly reliant on revenue from people who aren't actually consuming the product. If CNN's coverage of Joe Rogan and ivermectin bothers you, it's time to hold the company accountable.

You might be thinking, "but, Mike, I like watching FILL IN THE BLANK network. How will I get access to that programming?" That's a very fair point and I'll admit, it can get tricky if there are 4 or 5 networks that you genuinely do like watching. The great news is a lot of these content owners are building out their own direct to consumer platforms. If, like most Americans, you mainly watch the 4 national broadcast networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX), you really only need a $15 antenna to replace most of your linear TV viewing. If you want to watch Tucker Carlson on Fox News, a lot of his clips end up on platforms like YouTube shortly after they're live. The point is, your options as a consumer are growing.

Do something about it

These companies will continue building out direct to consumer platforms. There will come a time when you will be able to download the apps of all of the networks you want, pay them directly, and not worry about paying for the stuff you don't want. We're already seeing traditional cable networks attempting a go-it-alone model. Discovery is a good example. The networks that get paid regardless of whether or not you view them have the most to lose and will fight it the hardest. CNN is absolutely in that camp. MSNBC is absolutely in that camp. If you've had enough, make them feel it.

Yes, there are probably things you enjoy watching that you may lose access to by cutting the cord. Is it worth it to hold these companies accountable? Only you can make that decision. I'll tell you, anecdotally I don't know that I've met anyone who has cut the cord and regretted it. You will save money. You will find something more productive to do with your time. And you will make a statement, even if you're the only one who does it after reading this. That statement is simple, "I have the power. And I'm done supporting you."