The art and strategy of branding has been an integral part of SHOOT’s coverage over the years. And companies branding themselves smartly is good business–not just for them but the media outlets through which they impart their message and persona. Ironically, a good number of these outlets have run afoul–at times even becoming the antithesis–of their original brand, particularly in primetime.
MTV is chock-full of reality TV in primetime. Music videos, through which MTV made its name literally and figuratively, aren’t nearly as prevalent as they once were on the network.
Bravo, a moniker originally based on the arts and such, is now home to a parade of reality shows that are far afield from the network’s name–unless you feel curtain calls are in order for the materialistic machinations of Real Housewives.
A&E, short for what was once known as Arts & Entertainment, brings us the likes of Duck Dynasty and Storage Wars.
But most disconcerting is what most news channels bring us in primetime–everything but news. Fox News–which contrary to popular opinion has some good journalists on staff–has no regular weeknight primetime program headlined by those journalists. Commentary is instead the lucrative programming choice. MSNBC, which can tap into a rich vein of NBC reporters, also has no regularly scheduled meaningful time for those journalists in primetime.
Imagine, though in retrospect naively, what legitimate journalists envisioned years ago as to what they could accomplish on 24/7 “News” channels. No longer would they be restricted by half-hour or 60-minute newscasts–and the inherent limitations of the sound bite mentality. But that great potential to do more hasn’t been realized in mass media.
Shouldn’t entities that brand themselves as “News” channels make room for journalists to do what they do best in primetime? Imagine a primetime with at least an hour of regularly scheduled programming controlled and presented by journalists–delving more deeply into stories and issues with an objective bent. If so-called “leading news channels” won’t commit to that, who will?
But those channels won’t commit because the real money to be made is in commentary/opinion–a vehicle which at times seems more interested in creating a riled-up electorate rather than an informed one. Additionally, they often provide safe harbor for so-called news makers. It used to be that a public official, politician, or aspirant to the seat of power would need to face stiff, yet civil, questioning in order to get his or her brand and message across. The Fourth Estate would strive for objectivity while holding people’s feet to the figurative fire–challenging them to answer questions they might not want to be asked.
Instead, politicians and the like can get more than their 15 minutes of fame on a regular basis from a friendly commentator/news channel host. If you’re conservative, make sure to be interviewed on certain Fox News shows. If you’re liberal, your network of choice is MSNBC. You can get the exposure you crave without being substantively challenged while for the most part being watched by those sympathetic to your viewpoints. It’s an insular existence that is mirrored by our legislators–rather than come together and address issues through compromise and being open-minded to what “the other side” might offer,” we find divisiveness and posturing in what is widely regarded as the most ineffectual Congress in our country’s history.
Maybe our world could be substantively better if legislators took their brand as “public servants” more seriously and the “News” stations that covered them stayed more true to the spirit of their brand as well.
