Disney/ABC backs down, Jimmy Kimmel to return tonight.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 186
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
That is not an answer. How did they fold? What did you expect them to do, that they didn't do?
Click to expand...
Disney reinstated Jimmy Kimmel on ABC
due to business pressures and backlash following his brief suspension, which angered consumers and prompted "thoughtful conversations" with the host about his future. While initially pulled off the air following comments he made, the suspension also triggered criticism from former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, a significant decline in subscriber numbers, threats against ABC affiliates, and backlash from both conservative and liberal factions. Disney ultimately reversed the decision to put Kimmel back on the air, making a business calculation to minimize negative financial and reputational impacts.
 
farce© said:
I thought this map from Axios was a good illustration of Kimmel coverage

IMG_0025.png
Click to expand...
This issue could speed up the inevitable move to a national streaming feed for the major broadcast networks. In the not too distant future, local affiliates may soon become obsolete. Yes, there may well be a few meemaws and pawpaws that still use the rabbit ears, but soon everyone will be streaming all entertainment. When that day comes, local affiliates will cease to have any relevance.

Pending that inevitable future, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox may choose to simply offer a free direct to consumer streaming service with ads. The affiliates do not have any leverage in this situation, and if they overplay their hand, their demise may come sooner than they expect.
 
Calheel said:
Yes, there may well be a few meemaws and pawpaws that still use the rabbit ears, but soon everyone will be streaming all entertainment. When that day comes, local affiliates will cease to have any relevance
Click to expand...
Not 100% sure, but I think local affiliates hold the contracts with cable providers. It's not just over-air broadcasts. I don't know if that is required by law (it might be) or if it's just historically how it's been done.

I'm also not sure this affects your point at all. I have also been wondering why these local stations would be picking this fight, why ABC doesn't have all the leverage? I'm thinking they are looking to use the FCC to promulgate regulations that give them more power as a matter of law. Maybe the FCC would require any content streaming to go through local affiliates. I don't know telecom law very well.
 
Calheel said:
This issue could speed up the inevitable move to a national streaming feed for the major broadcast networks. In the not too distant future, local affiliates may soon become obsolete. Yes, there may well be a few meemaws and pawpaws that still use the rabbit ears, but soon everyone will be streaming all entertainment. When that day comes, local affiliates will cease to have any relevance.

Pending that inevitable future, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox may choose to simply offer a free direct to consumer streaming service with ads. The affiliates do not have any leverage in this situation, and if they overplay their hand, their demise may come sooner than they expect.
Click to expand...
Especially now that all the local stations have their own streaming apps to watch local news whenever you want, no one really needs “local channels” for local news/weather. So YouTubeTV and their competitors could get their feeds directly from the networks and stream network content independently from local affiliates.
 
Calheel said:
This issue could speed up the inevitable move to a national streaming feed for the major broadcast networks. In the not too distant future, local affiliates may soon become obsolete. Yes, there may well be a few meemaws and pawpaws that still use the rabbit ears, but soon everyone will be streaming all entertainment. When that day comes, local affiliates will cease to have any relevance.

Pending that inevitable future, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox may choose to simply offer a free direct to consumer streaming service with ads. The affiliates do not have any leverage in this situation, and if they overplay their hand, their demise may come sooner than they expect.
Click to expand...
This folds in with the point @superrific made.

If the national networks were to bypass the local affiliates with cable and streaming services and have those services access the national network broadcasts as opposed to offering local affiliate broadcasts, it would significantly damage local affiliates. Add in something like what you're describing with free DTC streams with ads or no ads for a small fee and I think you'd essentially crush the local affiliates.

My only concern with doing this is what happens to local news broadcasts. Local print news media is already pretty much dead and if local tv media were to follow, who reports on local issues and events, especially political ones? Who covers local elections or issues with government? Who covers local business issues or community events or significant problems in the community?

I don't know that local tv media do a good job of that now, but a mediocre job is better than no one providing those stories to the public.
 
superrific said:
I have also been wondering why these local stations would be picking this fight, why ABC doesn't have all the leverage?
Click to expand...
Local stations don’t have the leverage, but the corporations which own many local stations do. No one cares if the Asheville/Greenville market preempts, but if they can preempt network programming in all of their markets, they can significantly reduce the number of eyeballs watching the commercials that advertisers paid a bunch of money to the networks based on national exposure. When these advertisers want a refund based on the markets not seeing their ads, it hurts the networks.
 
korgguy1971 said:
You have missed out, my friend. Even politics aside, they do some consistently funny sketches or bits like these, for example:





Or he will do things like practical jokes on his family members, particularly his Aunt Chippy:

Click to expand...

I'll be honest...i can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you're serious.
 
superrific said:
I just read up on it very briefly. It would depend on the contract. Usually the contracts provide that the affiliate must carry the network's schedule, except for specific reasons listed in the contract. For instance, regulatory compliance or emergency interruptions. But often the contracts have different rules for different time periods. The networks of course care most about their prime time shows and daytime soap operas, and when I was a kid, they didn't even provide programming from 7:00-8:00 (that I know of) -- syndicated game shows ran in those two half hour spots. Also there would be syndicated cartoons after school.

So "late night" is more valuable than afternoons perhaps, but it's less valuable than prime time. And so some contracts, apparently, have less rigid requirements. Kimmel isn't prime, so maybe it's not a coincidence they picked him. They can't go after anyone in news or prime time or daytime (e.g. not the View)
Click to expand...
I just found this link to an article on the topic…

Now, this isn’t something that will last long. According to former Washington Postmedia reporter Paul Farhi, station groups like Sinclair can only preempt network programming a limited number of times before breaching its affiliate agreement with a network like ABC. That puts the Sinclairs and Nexstars of the world on a “short leash,” Farhi writes.

[…]

That, of course, is where live sports come in. Live sports are in many ways the lifeblood of broadcast television in 2025. No other programming attracts the type of audience that flocks to live sports. And as we enter the heart of football season, when ABC will be airing a full slate of SEC football on Saturdays along with the NFL’s Monday Night Football most weeks, we could be in for a high-stakes game of chicken between Disney and companies like Sinclair and Nexstar should they continue to preempt Kimmel.

Prior to last month, when ESPN launched its brand new direct-to-consumer app, the leverage would have been skewed heavily towards Disney. If Disney pulled ABC programming from its Sinclair and Nexstar-owned affiliates, there would have been no means by which sports fans could access live games scheduled for the network. Now, while it might not be ideal, fans could purchase ESPN’s direct-to-consumer product to access that programming, regardless of whether or not their local ABC affiliate was carrying the game.

awfulannouncing.com

Live sports could be collateral in programming battles with local affiliates

Live sports could prove to be collateral in an ongoing battle between local affiliates and national programmers like ABC.
awfulannouncing.com awfulannouncing.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top