Archive for January 17th, 2010
Conan’s Comeback Show Coming In September
Although Conan is most definitely leaving NBC’s Tonight Show by the end of this month, fans will have to wait until September to see him with his own show again, according to the New York Times.
Also, he’s going to have to share a portion of that reported $40 million payout from NBC.
Here’s Bill Carter on the Times‘ Media Decoder blog:
The financial terms include a payment of about $40 million by NBC, though Mr. O’Brien will not personally receive all of that. A portion will also go to staff members who have contracts of their own, one representative said.
The agreement is also expected to allow Mr. O’Brien to work again in television by September, if not sooner. Though no talks have been held with any potential suitors, executives at the Fox network have publicly expressed interest in talking to Mr. O’Brien once he is legally free to do so.
Perhaps we’ll see Conan make some special apperances on other late night shows and Charlie Rose-like roundtables. And there’s always the Internet. But don’t expect to see Conan make a comeback on any of the networks until the fall.
Which network will that be? Fox is already vying for him. But Conan could consider other options in cable. An executive at Fox’s sister station FX said he’d sign Conan “in a heartbeat,” according to The Wrap. Should he get unleashed at HBO? What about saddling up by the Jon Stewart crew at Comedy Central? Tell us where Conan should go from here.
Join the conversation about this story »
See Also:
- NBC Keeping 16 Years Worth of Conan’s Characters
- Conan Is Out Of NBC; Network Paying Up To $40 Million
- Conan Should Take His Show To HBO
NYT Charging For Content: Breaking News Or A Rehash?
Today’s “news” that The New York Times is “close to” coming up with a strategy to pay for content isn’t necessarily a scoop.
Sherman notes that “[t]he decision to go paid is monumental for the Times.”
Yet New York Times executives have been telling reporters for months that they had made the decision to put up some kind of pay-for-content model. They were simply deciding what kind it would be and when they would implement it.
As NYT Picker notes, several articles had previously confirmed a decision to create some kind of pay-for-content model, but executives have been pushing back time frames.
Here’s a few of those pieces, via NYT Picker:
From the New York Observer, way back on May 15, 2009:
By the end of June, The New York Times will come to a decision on how to charge for some of its content on the Web, The Observer has learned.
From the Daily Telegraph, nearly two months later, on July 9:
In an interview to be published in tomorrow’s Daily Telegraph, Scott Heekin-Canedy, the president and general manager of The New York Times Media Group, will say that he is deciding between two charging systems – a “metered” and a “membership” model. A firm decision will come by next month.
And from today’s New York Magazine post, by Gabriel Sherman:
One personal friend of Sulzberger said a final decision could come within days, and a senior newsroom source agreed, adding that the plan could be announced in a matter of weeks.
Note the use of the conditional word “could.” Very handy when a reporter has no idea if he’s right or not!
Sherman advances the story by citing anonymous sources who say the Times “seems to have settled” on the metered system. Executives have not confirmed the metered strategy on the record, probably because they do not want to confuse users and readers until they have figured out all the details.
Sherman explains which executives are making these kinds of big decisions behind the scenes:
In favor of a paid model were Keller and managing editor Jill Abramson. [Times' digital chief Martin] Nisenholtz and former deputy managing editor Jon Landman, who was until recently in charge of nytimes.com, advocated for a free site.
The argument for remaining free was based on the belief that nytimes.com is growing into an English-language global newspaper of record, with a vast audience — 20 million unique readers — that, Nisenholtz and others believed, would prove lucrative as web advertising matured. (The nytimes.com homepage, for example, has sold out on numerous occasions in the past year.) As other papers failed to survive the massive migration to the web, the Times would be the last man standing and emerge with even more readers. Going paid would capture more circulation revenue, but risk losing significant traffic and with it ad dollars. At an investor conference this fall, Nisenholtz alluded to this tension: “At the end of the day, if we don’t get this right, a lot of money falls out of the system.”
Even executive editor Keller told the Observer‘s John Koblin in May that there’s no guarantee that a pay model will best decision for the paper. “First of all, there’s no clear evidence that a pay model will save newspapers from the flight of advertisers,” he told the Observer. “It might, but that’s a matter of faith; nothing in previous experience (including the experience of the Journal and FT) and nothing in the reams of spread sheets proves that it will.”
Read why New York Times is doing exactly what they should be doing.
Join the conversation about this story »
See Also:
- New York Times Finally Decides To Add Online Paywall, Announcement In Weeks
- The New York Times Should Thank The Gods And Raise $500+ Million Of Equity While It Can
- The New York Times Fires More Journalists
Pro-Russian Candidate Wins First Round Of Ukrainian Election
Four years ago, Ukrainians took to the streets to support an ostensibly open democratic movement dubbed the “Orange Revolution.”
But the country has stagnated since then, and today voters offically took steps to turn back the clock, as former loser Victor Yanukovich won the first round of the country’s national election.
Yanukovich is Putin’s preferred candidate, and his election would take the country much closer to Moscow — perhaps an appealing prospect for a country that lives in fear of freezing winters, and the threat of Russians shutting off national gas.
But his election is no sure thing.
Current prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko (pictured) won the second place in the election, and when all the voters go to the polls to select between just two candidates (in the next round) she could easily pull ahead.
Join the conversation about this story »
See Also:
- The IMF Won’t Bail Out Ukraine, As Government Finances Deteriorate Beyond Repair
- Ignore The Flu And The Russia Problem, And Keep Gambling On The Ukraine
- Russia-Georgia Conflict Is Just The Beginning: Watch What Happens To Energy Prices When Russia Targets Ukraine
Obama Advisers Believe Coakley Will Lose
CNN’s political ticker reports that Obama’s advisers believe that Coakley will lose.
Join the conversation about this story »
See Also:
- Obama Defends Coakley, Healthcare Reform, and His Presidency In Boston
- Brown Is Now The Favorite In Massachusetts Senate Race
- Obama’s Prestige And Agenda Are Now At Risk In Massachusetts
Millions In Campaign Cash Flood Into Massachusetts In Final Days Of Senate Race
The fact that this unexpectedly competitive race is pouring millions into the Boston media markets makes us wonder: if we got rid of rigged Congressional districts, would local newspapers find a new lifeline from campaign cash?
How’s that for hope and change?
Heres the report on media spending from the AP:
Millions in campaign cash are flooding into Massachusetts in the final days of the race to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat, funding an all-out ad war between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown.
Voters can’t turn on a television or radio without being deluged by appeals on behalf of Brown or Coakley — or, more often, sharply worded attack ads.
Neither campaign would detail how much it has raised since Jan. 1, and disclosure laws make it hard to come up with firm, up-to-date numbers. But the figure easily reached into the millions in just the past week, according to a review of the fundraising numbers the candidates have confirmed combined with expenditures by interest groups.
“Money has poured in unlike anything I’ve seen in a one-week period in the history of Massachusetts,” said Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts. “This is money that Martha Coakley didn’t expect that she would have to raise and this is money that Scott Brown thought he couldn’t raise.”
The race changed when polls suggested Brown, considered a long shot, was closing on Coakley. Conservative groups sensed a chance to quash President Obama’s agenda and hand a defeat to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Brown, who had just $367,150 in his campaign account on Jan. 1, pulled in $1.3 million in a 24-hour online blitz last week.
A range of advocacy groups is also backing Brown, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has spent $500,000 on a television campaign, to the Tea Party movement, which has spent $200,000.
“The reason we’re endorsing Scott Brown is that his vote would be critical to defeating Harry Reid’s health care plan which the Tea Party movement is universally opposed to,” said Tea Party Express spokesman Levi Russell.
Others have zeroed in on Brown’s promise to be the “41st vote” against the health care bill. The legislation needs 60 votes to advance in the 100-member Senate.
Americans for Responsible Health Care is spending $200,000 on two TV spots calling Brown “the nation’s best last chance to stop this harmful legislation.” The Iowa-based conservative advocacy group American Future Fund has spent about $600,000 on an ad asserting Coakley “supports the reckless spending by Washington politicians.”
“Thanks to a tremendous outpouring of grass-roots support, we have the ability to pay our bills and get our message out,” said Felix Browne, a spokesman for Brown’s campaign.
Coakley, who had nearly $1 million in her account on Jan. 1 after a four-way primary battle, has been buoyed by appeals on her behalf by Obama and Kennedy’s widow, Vicki Kennedy. The campaign said the Vicki Kennedy appeal raised about $700,000 in a day.
Coakley also benefited from a Washington fundraiser attended in part by health care industry lobbyists.
Like Brown’s, Coakley’s campaign is being aided by outside groups.
EMILY’s List, which supports female candidates who back abortion rights, is spending about $250,000 on a radio ad it says highlights Brown’s record of voting with the Republican leadership.
SEIU, a union representing 60,000 service employees across Massachusetts, is making one the biggest campaign investments, spending up to $685,000 on ads faulting Brown for opposing a crackdown on excessive Wall Street bonuses.
In the past seven days, Coakley has also received $350,000 from the environmental advocacy group the League of Conservation Voters and $100,000 from another union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Join the conversation about this story »
See Also:
- Obama Defends Coakley, Healthcare Reform, and His Presidency In Boston
- Obama’s Prestige And Agenda Are Now At Risk In Massachusetts
- Obama To Make Emergency Campaign Stop For Martha Coakley