|
|
【登载媒体】赫芬顿邮报
【来源地址】http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-warner/the-ny-times-and-bloomber_b_339045.html
【译者】antifake2
【翻译方式】人工
【原文库连接】http://bbs.m4.cn/thread-204347-1-1.html
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。
The New York Times and Bloomberg Act as Stenographers for MSNBC on Anti-CNN Coverage
纽约时报和彭博社成了MSNBC反CNN报道的传声筒
On Tuesday, October 27, New York Times reporter Bill Carter wrote an article titled "CNN Last in TV News on Cable" in which he gave 25-54 ratings and rankings in prime time for the four cable news networks. He did not indicate where he got the numbers.
10月27日纽约时报的记者Bill Carter发表了一篇题为《CNN新闻在有线电视网络中排名倒数第一》的新闻，其中他给出了从25至54位的排名和四大有线电视网络在黄金时段的排名。但他没有指出数据的来源。
Sarah Rabil wrote a similar article on Bloomberg.com posted at 3:18 p.m. EDT and titled "CNN Falls to Fourth Place in Prime-Time Cable News" in which she wrote: "CNN, owned by Time Warner Inc., placed fourth among cable news networks in prime-time audience ratings in October, according to Nielsen Co. data provided by MSNBC."
彭博社的Sarah Rabil写了一篇相似的报道，标题为《CNN成了四大有线电视网络在黄金时段的最后一名》。文中说到，时代华纳控股的CNN在十月份，黄金时段的收视率排在了第四。数据根据MSNBC提供的尼尔森收视调查。
OK, now we know where Bill Carter got his numbers - the MSNBC flacks had been spinning the story to media reporters and columnists - and Sarah, as a good reporter should, wrote where she got the numbers. Bill Carter didn't, but you know as well as I do what the original source of his information was.
现在我们知道Bill Carter是从哪里得到的数据了。MSNBC的宣传部门将这个故事塞给了媒体记者和专栏作者以及Sarah，Sarah作为一个优秀的记者写出了数据的出处。Bill Carter没写，但我们都知道原始数据的来源了。
Carter and Rabil acted as virtual, or rather digital, stenographers for the MSNBC public relations flacks, just like the flacks wanted them to. Neither Carter nor Rabil gave much insight into why the ratings might have been the way they were.
Carter和Rabil事实就像MSNBC公关部门的数字速记员一样，做了MSNBC希望他们做的事情。他们都没有太注意到为什么排名为成现在这个样子。
When I returned to the Bloomberg.com site at about 7:15 p.m. to link to the CNN story , I noticed it had been updated at 7:58 p.m. and the name of another reporter, Brett Pulley, had been added. The story's headline was "CNN Falls to Fourth in Prime-Time Cable News Ratings (Update1)," was longer than the original one, and mentioned that the ratings information was "according to Nielsen data cited in an e-mail by Alana Russo, a spokeswoman for MSNBC."
当我晚上7点15分再去彭博社网站找这篇关于CNN的报道时，我发现它在晚上7点58分的时候被另一个记者Brett Pulley更新了，加入了些内容。标题被加长成了《CNN在有线电视黄金时段排名跌至第四（更新1）》，还提到排名信息是根据MSNBC的一个叫Alana Russo的发言人在邮件中引用的尼尔森的数据。
At least the Bloomberg.com reporters were transparent about where they got their information, but the journalistic question is "would the story get played to make CNN look bad if it wasn't sold by MSNBC flacks?" and "Do the stories give insight or are the reporters merely acting as stenographers for their source?'
至少彭博社的记者们对这些信息是很透明的，但是记者的疑问是，如果这不是MSNBC公关部放出的报道会让CNN看起来很糟糕吗？一些报道深入了解它的来源吗？还是记者们很少成为这些消息的传声筒呢？
Carter's New York Times story was more insightful and gave some possible reasons for CNN's decline: CNN was down from 2007 and 2008, which were dominated by political news, and because MSNBC and Fox News in prime are filled with opinion programming and CNN, except for the ridiculous Lou Dobbs, isn't. Prime time was emphasized because that's where ratings and, thus, ad dollars are highest.
Carter在纽约时报上的报道更有见地也对CNN的衰落给出了更合理的理由：CNN在2007年和2008年就下滑了，完全被政治新闻占据。而MSNBC和FOX新闻主要是一些观点性的节目，相反CNN只有可笑的Lou Dobbs, isn't。黄金时段之所以被重视是因为它的排名关乎广告收入的高低。
But neither Carter nor Rabil and Pulley's story made the connection between CNN's rating declines and the drastic change in the news network's channel position on Time Warner Cable in New York, where almost 10 percent of the country's TV homes are.
但是Carter 、Rabil 和Pulley的报道都没有将CNN排名的下滑和纽约时代华纳有线电视网络中新闻频道位置的巨大变化联系起来。它是差不多百分之十的国家电视的根据地所在。
CNN was moved from the favorable Channel 10 position on Time Warner Cable in New York to the unfavorable position of Channel 78 and Fox's FX network was moved to Channel 10. Why do you suppose this happened? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that in February, 2007, Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable into a separate public company?
CNN在时代华纳有线电视中从受人喜爱的10频道一到了不受待见的78频道，但是FOX的FX网络被移到了10频道。你觉得为什么会产生这样的变化呢？对于2007年2月时代华纳有线电视从时代华纳中分离成一个独立的公司，就没有什么可以做的吗？
When Time Warner owned both Time Warner Cable and the Turner Broadcasting System, which owns CNN and HLN (previously Headline News), they were in the same family and CNN got favorable treatment from Time Warner Cable.
当时代华纳同时拥有时代华纳有线电视和特纳广播公司，CNN和HLN都在同一家公司，CNN从时代华纳有线电视那里得到了优厚的对待。
But after the divorce in 2007, the newly independent Time Warner Cable wasn't in a mood to be nice to its former family members. After February 2007, Time Warner Cable was in a position to maximize profits for itself, not for its former family members.
但是2007年被分割出去之后，新成立的独立的时代华纳有线电视没有心情去善待过去的家庭成员。2007年2月之后时代华纳有线电视公司专注于利润最大化，而不是帮助过去的伙伴。
I suspect Time Warner Cable instituted a pay-for-play policy and began to charge cable networks for more favorable channel positions. I'll bet Fox sweetened the pot and got FX moved to Channel 10 in New York. I'll bet that MSNBC ponied up, too, and got a more favorable position (Channel 14 in New York), next to its sibling, CNBC on Channel 15. It doesn't look like CNN or HLN (Channel 58 in New York) coughed up enough, if any, money and got buried on Channel 78, which could affect the ratings.
我怀疑时代华纳有线电视公司实行的是按付费多少决定如何对待的政策，开始对有线电视中的人气高的频道位置进行收费。我打赌FOX给了它甜头让它把纽约的FX移到了10频道。MSNBC肯定也花了钱，调到了在纽约比较好的14频道，挨着它的兄弟频道。CNN和HLN看起来就不像花足了钱，不然钱和被埋葬在78频道，哪个更能影响排名。
The Nielsen ratings sample is notorious small and, thus, is not terribly stable from rating period to rating period, In October, according to MSNBC's numbers as fed to the Times and Bloomberg.com, CNN in prime time had 202,000 viewers 25-54 and MSBNC had 250,000. Those 48,000 viewers could be a rounding error caused by the change in channel position (although CNN lost in a couple of months to MSNBC before the channel switch) or to sampling error.
尼尔森的排名样本是出了名的小的，而且根据不同的评级时期还不够稳定。10月份根据MSNBC给纽约时报和彭博社的数据，CNN在黄金时段有202,000名观众，而MSNBC有250,000名。这48,000名观众的差距可能是频道位置变化引起的误差（虽然CNN在频道位置变化的几个月前就落后于MSNBC了）或者是抽样误差。
But perhaps the larger questions is, "What does it matter to cable subscribers if Time Warner Cable is making more money because of pay-for-play, if indeed it is using this strategy?"
但是，最大的问题也许是，“时代华纳有线电视公司以钱的数量来分频道，这对有线电视用户意味着什么？它是否真的采用这个方法？”
Well, my wife and I pay Time Warner Cable $142 a month for cable and an internet connection, and I can't remember the price of our service ever going down. Well, that's not entirely true; we recently got a measly $1.00 taken off our bill for eliminating paper and paying electronically. But the point is that our cable bills are going up, the service is passable at best (the internet service is fully automated by means of voice recognition and you have to give up two fingers and a toe to get to talk to a real person), and Time Warner Cable is now making more money than ever.
好吧，我和我妻子为了看电视和上网，每个月给时代华纳有线电视公司142美元，我不记得他们有降过价。这也不算全部事实了，因为我们最近因为采用电子支付，取消了纸质账单而减少了区区1美元。但是关键是我们有线电视的帐单费用还在上涨，服务还算充其量也就是马马虎虎（互联网服务完全采用自动化的语音识别手段，你必须腾开两根手指和脚趾与一个真正的人谈话[译注：这指的是什么...寒]），时代华纳有线电视公司现正赚的钱比啥时候都多。
Not what you'd call consumer friendly. No wonder the cable industry is vilified in public opinion polls and shows up lower than even journalists and politicians (and that's lower than whale dung). Consumers are angry, and having the cable companies inconvenience them with senseless channel switches just to make more money is going to make them angrier.
不是友好地给客户打电话。难怪有限电视行业的民意调查满意度很差，甚至比记者和政客（这个已经很烂了）还低。消费者处于愤怒中，如果有线电视公司不顾用户的方便，为了赚钱，毫无意义地交换频道，这会让他们更愤怒。
Comcast, the nation's largest cable company (Time Warner is number two), is in negotiations to buy 51 percent of NBC Universal from GE. Congress will give this proposed merger close scrutiny because both Congress and consumers are angry, and when they both find out about play-for-play, they'll be angrier, I'll bet.
Comcast是美国有线电视公司中的老大（时代华纳只是老二），与在与GE公司谈判，收购51%的NBC通用的股份。国会将会这个并购详细研究，因为国会和消费者都很愤怒，当他们都发现“有钱换频道”这事的话，我敢打赌，他们一定更加愤怒。
And it doesn't help when business and media reporters don't scrutinize stories the are fed by PR flacks and act as stenographers for cable company spin.
商业媒体记者不核对公关大叔们给的稿子，扮演着一个有线公司的传声筒。这事最后对谁都没好处。 |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2009-10-30 19:09
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
楼主
