Media Matters is engaged in guerrilla war with Fox News. According to Politico:
In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.
But that ain’t all:
Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor.
Media Matters’ frontal assault strategy may have some effect at the margins, despite questionable legality. But Fox Cable News has a much bigger problems on its hands: Netflix, Hulu and a la carte programming. (I realize Fox is a part of the Hulu consortium. But the problem remains.)
If cable channels can’t find a way to adapt more vigorously in the age of on-demand programming, they may find many of their viewers bailing for Lost and Lord of the Rings reruns offered online. You see: linear programming is moribund.
Disruptive Innovation
Fox Cable News is peaking just as defectors are giving up on cable in droves. People like me are leaving every day. Inexpensive Web-based a la carte programming is a good example of what Clayton Christensen calls a “disruptive innovation.” That means if you can rapidly provide something simpler and cheaper for consumers in a space once occupied by large incumbents, you can ‘disrupt’ the market. Often, indeed, you start out by addressing a market segment that didn’t really have access before–like the cash-strapped TV viewer (which is a lot of people these days). If you do it and do it well, you’ll win.
Just look at this growth of Netflix and Hulu chart from almost one year ago on BusinessInsider.
It’s no wonder the some entertainment content providers have gone a-whorin’ for net neutrality legislation — which is more or less the socialization of bandwidth (benefiting said providers, harming ISPs). Of course, net neutrality could either come back to bite content providers on the proverbial, or it could be rendered irrelevant by new (disruptive) distribution innovations. It’s hard to say.
Should we be concerned that the Netflix CEO was seen, fairly recently, schmoozing with the big O? Whatever happens on the policy front, the market may kill the cable channel anyway, because it’s killing the distribution mechanism. Content is breaking up and modularizing — sort of like iPhone apps. But remember too that Fox News is content. Comcast and Time-Warner are pipes. So Fox News may survive the upheaval — if they play their cards right.
The Paradox of a la Carte
The paradox in all this — at least under the left-liberal theory of information control — is an ironic one. That is: even if the cyber-socialists and/or cost-cutting consumers succeed in bringing down cable as we know it, people tend to seek out content that reinforces their worldview. This fact has had progressives wringing hands for a long time and similar concerns have justified such monstrously illiberal policies as The Fairness Doctrine. So — again, under the “progressive” theory — if Fox News poisons the minds of enough Americans, it may already be too late. Consumers weighed down with quaint, conservative ideas will find a way to get their quaint conservative content. And the left will have no way to get their ideas in except state coercion.
Count cable out?
Cable encumbants have long been happy to accept regulation that benefits their sector and protects them from competition. But the writing is on the wall is becoming more distinct — at least in the provision of television content via traditional cable.
The future is less clear for cable companies as broadband providers. But don’t ignore the cyber-socialists there, either. Some of the original web weavers like Vint Cerf have been shilling for municipal (read socialized) broadband for years. Others are pushing for net neutrality. And while new technologies may obviate the need for pipes at all, municipal broadband is a bad idea in the interim..
Still, we shouldn’t count cable out. The big incumbents have very deep pockets — resources they can use to transform themselves. And for cable channels — i.e. content providers — good programming will find its way into American homes no matter what the pipes are. They’re already getting into wireless networking and have considerable marketshare in this space.
I guess the point in all of this is: we have no idea what’s going to happen. In such a screwy, distorted, regulated and interdependent space — replete with predators in sheep’s clothing and no good guys — Fox News is in for a very wild ride. And Media Matters just doesn’t matter that much in the grand scheme.
Max Borders is a writer living in Austin. He blogs at Ideas Matter.
