Costs Of Preempting Programming

By Author: Ellen
Total Articles: 95
Comment this article

When the news division of a network preempts regular programming for special news—such as the funeral of Winston Churchill, the visit of Pope John Paul II, a space shuttle launch, or the efforts to locate the plane carrying John F. Kennedy, Jr.—advertisers who have paid to sponsor the regular programming are not given what they paid for and either have their money refunded or are offered alternate times to air their ads. Networks are corporations governed by boards accountable to stockholders who expect to receive dividends. The decision to preempt regular Vibram FiveFinger Discount programming is a costly one. If the news interrupts or preempts a program that attracts a small audience, the network loses less money than if a popular program is interrupted. Consequently, a network whose programs are unpopular risks less by interrupting them with breaking news.

The cost of preempting entertainment programming to cover government activities was documented by a government study, which concluded that there was one major reason for the "decline in network interest ...
... in matters of government—the enormous increase in network earnings and the huge loss of profits that would result from any preemption."

Yet a network's prestige is, in part, a function of the quality of its news programming, and viewers are comforted by the assurance that if something important hap-pens, the networks will interrupt regular programming to bring them that information. Therefore, whatever the cost, a network cannot afford to ignore important news. When President John Kennedy was assassinated, for example, there was no question that the networks would preempt whatever was on the air to bring that event and ensuing developments to the audience. But most news is not as important as a presidential assassination. In such cases, profit and loss must be weighed against the gain in prestige that might result from the coverage or the loss in prestige if the event is not covered. A network is particularly vulnerable when one of its competitors covers an event.

Television networks occasionally agree to rotate coverage of an important event to minimize loss of advertising revenue. Accordingly, the networks rotated coverage of the Iran-Contra hearings. This gave the audience a chance to choose between regular programming and coverage of the hearings. Audience members know what they have missed, or that television should have aired an event and didn't, because newspaper television critics tell them. Caught in this bind, television has sought ways to ensure audience awareness of the news without interrupting regularly scheduled programming except in extraordinary circumstances.

The "news break," sponsored by an advertiser, represents one such avenue. News breaks occur during commercial breaks in programming and are brief summaries of the day's headlines. This format creates an association between news and advertising, which advertisers' desire. With news breaks or news updates, advertisers, not the network, bear the cost of underwriting the time, and programming goes on as expected.

Television also runs print information across the lower third of the screen during regular programming to bring important information to the viewer. This device is used more often to tell the viewer that the local news will follow a program that is running overtime than to convey important breaking news, but it is also used to keep audiences posted on the status of hurricanes or tornadoes and to indicate disaster warnings and watches.

Not everyone agrees that live news coverage is a blessing. In 1986, for example, the ABC and NBC television networks were flooded with calls from angry viewers who tuned in to watch their favorite soap operas only to find them preempted by live coverage of congressional hearings on the Iran arms Discount Vibram Fivefingers sale. All three networks preempted regular daytime programming for coverage of the hearings. ABC News spokesperson Thomas Goodman said the network received 1,330 calls. "All objected to preemption of soap operas," he said. NBC reported receiving 1,100 complaints. CBS received fewer than three dozen calls. Some coverage, such as network coverage of Nixon's trip to the Soviet Union, was criticized as political propaganda. This charge was given credence when two of Nixon's reelection campaign commercials in 1972 consisted of edited news footage of his trips to Russia and China.

Commercial pressures for high ratings and the revenues they assure affect judgments about what news will be covered, particularly if coverage involves the costly preemption of other lucrative programming. As a result, in 1988, 1992, and 1996 all three major networks cut their coverage of the Republican and Democratic National conventions. The extensive coverage provided by CNN and MSNBC and the gavel-to-gavel coverage by C-SPAN, however, enabled viewers with cable television to see both the Democratic and Republican conventions firsthand in 1988, 1992, and 1996.