The Black Informant | African American Commentary, News and Community Building

The premise of this site seems to be about being informed, but your post shows that you are grossly misinformed and are willing to spread lies as your own “reporting.”

You cite me being given my own show on CNN, which is false. I was filling in. Wasn’t my show. My title. My focus.

Second, you suggested I complained about a lack of promotion. You pass off an erroneous report in the NY Post as your own. What the Post wrote was a lie then and now. I never complained about lack of promotion of getting high-profile guests. You should be ashamed for not even bothering to read my repeated comments denouncing that horrible report as reported by credible news sources.

Then you declare this show an experiment by picking up an AP story saying it’s aimed at blacks. You clearly show that you aren’t worth anything as a reporter in that you didn’t even bother to read the actual press release from TV One, which sheds more light on the aim of the show. So you are commenting on someone else’s interpretation of what the show is supposed to be about. That’s not being an informed source. Man, stop sitting on the couch pontificating from ignorance. Learn about the subject at hand from all perspectives, then offer an insightful opinion.

The only reason I bothered to comment on this because I saw some other misinformed folks actually pick up your misinformed piece, so I decided to set the record straight.

If you want to actually write about what this show will be about and who wil be on it, why don’t you be a real reporter and contact TV One and seek an interview with Johnathan Rodgers or myself.

By the way, we will have other voices than just black voices.

Lastly, had you actually read the press release, you would have seen that our aim is to also provide a platform for men and women of color who are ignored by the Sunday morning news shows. Think tanks, policy makers, local, state and national elected officials, black journalists, bloggers and others will now have a platform to be able to speak to the issues of the day. Yea, people like you might be invited to speak on our show. You would NEVER get a crack at the existing shows.

So instead of hating, what you should be doing is INFORMING your readers that we are doing what the founders of the first Black newspaper, Freedom’s Journal (1827) said in their lead editorial: “We wish to plead our own cause. Too long have others spoken for us.”

To read the press release on the show, go to: http://essence.typepad.com/news/2009/07/roland-s-martin-to-host-sunday-news-show-on-tv-one.html

You cite me being given my own show on CNN, which is false. I was filling in. Wasn’t my show. My title. My focus.

This is what I wrote. Read it slowly and you will notice I did not say you were given your show.

Roland Martin was practically given his own show on CNN (He was filling in for Campbell Brown while she was on maternity leave).

As a sub for Campbell Brown, it was your responsibility to AT LEAST maintain the ratings she was getting before you stepped in. You were not only able to do that, but according to this article when CNN was asked about your ratings…

“We won’t have further comment on that.”

Second, you suggested I complained about a lack of promotion. You pass off an erroneous report in the NY Post as your own.

If you would have taken the time to follow the link that was provided in the post, you will see that the NY Post was clearly credited and sourced for the information you are now stating was false in the first place. Bottom line, you ratings tanked regardless if the NY Post lied in their reporting or not.

Then you declare this show an experiment by picking up an AP story saying it’s aimed at blacks.

A couple of things:

1) Some of the same excerpts that were used in the AP article were also used in the EUR post about it today. Did they get it wrong as well? Huffington Post? Looking at the link for the press release, nothing appears to be misquoted or misinterpreted.

2) If the show is not exclusively aimed at Blacks, then why is it on TV One? Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I love the idea. But you know as well as I that what you are doing with this show has been tried numerous times over and over again. And when the ratings do not meet the expectations, advertisers get blamed, producers get blamed, the network gets blamed, contract gets blamed. Everybody gets blamed but the person sitting in front of the camera. The people I listed in this post left the format and area that you are now trying to make something happen. With the exception of Reid, all seem to be doing quite well and better than if they stayed in this format.

So you are commenting on someone else’s interpretation of what the show is supposed to be about.

So are you now suggesting that the AP also got Johnathan Rodgers wrong when he stated “…but I put this under the public affairs arena. It doesn’t have to be a ratings success.”? A comment like that doesn’t necessarily raise expectations for the show.

You clearly show that you aren’t worth anything as a reporter

A reporter I am not. I comment on the news, just like you.

As far as the TV One press release goes, just exactly how is it different from what was published by the AP? Rodgers felt that the Black perspective was not being well represented on Sunday morning talk shows and he picked you to provide that perspective. My point in this whole piece is that like BET, TV One is trying to compete with the other talk shows in that same slot. And based on Rodgers’ own comment regarding ratings, even he knows that it will be a formable task. The reality is that you are on a Black channel and that alone cuts down your potential reach in the marketplace. Again, your stint with CNN gives us a good indication of how “Washington Watch” will do. Ratings do matter to advertisers. Low ratings and the show disappears and is replaced with either recycled sitcoms or infomercials.

The only reason I bothered to comment on this because I saw some other misinformed folks actually pick up your misinformed piece, so I decided to set the record straight.

Since you want to comment on my piece and school me, when will you be ready to provide an explanation on my point about your ratings? There have been MANY commentators like yourself who were able to step in and actually gain more viewers. I pointed that out and you got mad.

Was I also misinformed when on this same website where I either praised your efforts in the media or posted a link to your articles without comment? Or do you only go on these tangents when your are being questioned?

Great move for a black newspaper

Podcast from the Chicago Defender: Very good interview!!

Memo to the NY Times: “Bring it on!” (Roland S. Martin)

Congrats!!

No DeLay – it’s time for Tom to go (Roland S. Martin)

Back in 2005 in your piece “Blogs are just a great bore”, you said: “In fact, I see blogs as nothing more than a glorified 21st century diary.” You also wrote:“Far too many of my colleagues have gone mad with the fascination with blogs.” Yet here you are in 2009 defending your upcoming show that will be broadcast to millions of homes in my lil’ “diary”. In fact, here is a link to your own blog.

If you want to actually write about what this show will be about and who wil be on it, why don’t you be a real reporter and contact TV One and seek an interview with Johnathan Rodgers or myself.

No thanks. I find it more interesting commenting on the news and leave the reporting to those who actually do that for a living. From what I have seen from you in the last few years, that includes you.

So instead of hating, what you should be doing is INFORMING your readers.

So if my opinion does not match yours, I am now “hating”? Come now, bruh. I respect you more than that.

Duane, I think Roland Martin makes some good points. He has said the NY Post article was wrong and he said so from day one. I think that needs to be stated by you. It’s now done by him on your post and I guess that’s just as good.

Concerning this one: “I hope to get smart, intelligent, entertaining conversation,” Rodgers said, “but I put this under the public affairs arena. It doesn’t have to be a ratings success.”

None of the Sunday morning talking head shows are really “rating successes” when compared to other shows on the schedule. My question concerning the Sunday shows has always been, what quantifies success? I tend to think the shows are “loss leaders” but the networks get “prestige” points by saying “so and so” is on the show. When I see the advertisements, they aren’t exactly shooting for “average Joe/Jane” money when I see ads for Alcoa, ADM, Lockheed Martin, Northup Grumman, etc.

“BET’s signature series have suffered from weak viewership. BET Tonight averages a 0.29 rating (187,000 households), while the music series 106 and Park averages a 0.7 (535,000 households.).”

You’ve made this and similar comparisons before and I’ve said the comparison is apples and oranges and you should know better. First, there’s different target audience and a different time slot. Here is where I bring up Teen Summit again. It had the numbers for that time slot and that target audience. It had the awards. BET axed it for “ratings reasons” and it didn’t seem to add up.

I think that needs to be stated by you. It’s now done by him on your post and I guess that’s just as good.

Ed, you have always been a trip. Always have been, always will be.
The NY Post article was about CNN’s RATINGS. Whether Martin said what he did or not concerning lack of promotion, that is not for me to decipher. However, the ratings are fair game and open for all to see. That is what I addressed.

None of the Sunday morning talking head shows are really “rating successes” when compared to other shows on the schedule.

Are they ratings failures?

You’ve made this and similar comparisons before and I’ve said the comparison is apples and oranges and you should know better.

What has stayed on the air consistently and what has dropped off time and time again because of ratings?

Ed, you have always been a trip. Always have been, always will be.

Thanks, I think…

The NY Post article was about CNN’s RATINGS.

That wasn’t clear at all.

While he did try to fall back on the excuse that CNN was not promoting him enough or giving him high profile guests, as I pointed out in this post CNN has been promoting Anderson Cooper to death and giving him high profile guests. His ratings are also tanking, and he is White.

Again, Roland Martin has been saying the comments about him complaining about promoting the show were wrong and that’s what he commented on.

Concerning the ratings, you imply he is the problem when CNN ratings, and the ratings of other cable shows except for Fox, have been tanking.

Are they ratings failures?

What defines failure? I’m dead serious here. “Face The Nation” STINKS but stays around with Scheafer as the host. Chris Matthew’s Sunday show, SUCKS. Well, Matthew SUCKS in general.

What has stayed on the air consistently and what has dropped off time and time again because of ratings?

False premise. I come back to “Teen Summit.” BET said they cut the show because of ratings but the ratings that they claimed were bad, weren’t for that time slot.

That wasn’t clear at all.

To you?

Concerning the ratings, you imply he is the problem when CNN ratings, and the ratings of other cable shows except for Fox, have been tanking.

One more time. The ratings for Campbell Brown went down during the time he took over. I’m talking about the show he hosted. Anderson Cooper’s viewership has gone down as well. Are you suggesting Cooper had nothing to do with that equation either? Stay on point.

What defines failure? I’m dead serious here.

No. You are not serious.

Regardless of what you personally think of Face the Nation, Chris Matthews, etc., it is completely pointless. Those shows have managed to stay on the air and attract advertisers who have been putting money on the table for years. The same cannot be said for the shows I mentioned earlier (which is why you keep falling back on “Teen Summit” which was not a news program in the first place. Talk about comparing apples to oranges!). No doubt, many of the Sunday morning political talk shows on the major networks do have huge advantages that Washington Watch does not have. Political shows generally are not a big draw for the average American viewer. But if you are good and/or well connected, you stay on. Political movers and shakers are going to naturally gravitate towards shows with the highest ratings (shows that get the most eyeballs). If they need to make an appeal to Black folks directly (which is rare), they seek out Black news outlets. That is why ratings are important, no matter how you may try to suggest differently. Does this mean that there is absolutely no hope for Washington Watch? Not at all. There is always hope. Again, I’m looking at past attempts to put together a format like this and in most cases they have failed (You can throw NPR’s “News and Notes” in there as well). You target Black folks exclusively (“My audience is 93% black, I serve my audience.” [Johnathan Rodgers]), and your ratings will reflect that. Especially if Washington Watch is being shown on Sunday mornings. One of Ed Gordon’s highest ratings on BET was when Trent Lott needed to make his apology to Black folks. “News & Notes also took the “bottom to top” approach by inviting bloggers and opinions from folks outside of the beltway. What happened? Canceled. Why? Because what really matters to Black folks just like every other group is quality in programing. Race of host is important to some, but it comes secondary in the end. The only people who think that Black folks need a Black filter to pay attention to the news, otherwise we just are not interested are the dweebs out here in cyberspace and in the media.

Please don’t make me go there with the whole debate back in the day that if more Blacks are seen behind the news desk, Black viewers will automatically follow. Black folks have more depth than that.

If Martin can bring it, great. Until then, I’m looking at what the man has done with his stint with CNN.

Tavis changed his approach with his show on PBS and apparently his show is doing very well. But again, he has not cornered the show on a Black channel. Why else do you think he gave that story to ABC and not BET back in the day? He had to go beyond the box folks try to place most of our commentators.

Another thing, why put Washington Watch on Sunday? Most Black folks are in church. The 5pm slot might work, but games are still on. Nightly during the week may have a much better chance.

False premise

Answer the question.

I am a reporter and a commentator. I don’t sit on the air and pop off. I based on my opinion on a set of FACTS. You’re just someone commenting with no understanding of the core facts.

I based on my opinion on a set of FACTS.

And yet neither you nor CNN are willing to address the FACTS I raised about your ratings other than falling back on “wasn’t my show”. If what I said about THAT is untrue (which was the whole point of the post in the first place), then you are more than welcomed to call me on it. Until then, thanks for visiting my “diary”.

Let’s try this again. The last time it complained about proxy settings….

To you?

Yes, and to Roland Martin.

One more time. The ratings for Campbell Brown went down during the time he took over. I’m talking about the show he hosted. Anderson Cooper’s viewership has gone down as well. Are you suggesting Cooper had nothing to do with that equation either? Stay on point.

I’m looking at the big picture of ratings for cable news during the time period. Let’s do this again.

During that ratings period, ratings of all cable news shows, except Fox, went down. So, even though the ratings may have dropped while Martin was temp host, was Martin the cause or was the “industry drop” the cause or both? An analogy is auto sales fell for GM, Ford, and Toyota. But, did Toyota’s sale fall for the same reasons as Ford or GM or was it industry wide?

Regardless of what you personally think of Face the Nation, Chris Matthews, etc., it is completely pointless. Those shows have managed to stay on the air and attract advertisers who have been putting money on the table for years.

My question is why are they still on the air? Is it a matter of ratings and/or advertisements or a need to have a news show? Is the ad revenue and/or ratings of “Face The Nation” important? If so, why is there no re-vamping of the show even though the show’s ratings are constantly in the toilet? Is the “success” of these shows the same as that of a show on prime time or the morning during the week? Are the Sunday talking head shows considered “loss leaders” for the networks?

Here’s a good example. O’Reily’s show has been rated number one of all cable news shows during the same period. Yet, it’s ratings are much lower than those of “regular” television. Is success defined by how the show does against the competition on cable or is it based on overall ratings? The ratings of Seinfeld were poor the first year but the network gave it a chance.

he same cannot be said for the shows I mentioned earlier (which is why you keep falling back on “Teen Summit” which was not a news program in the first place. Talk about comparing apples to oranges!).

BET canceled “Teen Summit”, it said, because of poor ratings. Yet, during the time period and for the target audience, the ratings for “Teen Summit” were good. This is something brought up by people inside of BET and media observers outside of BET. I keep mention that for a reason. If BET lied about the ratings for “Teen Summit” as justification for canceling it, why believe them about other shows?

Political movers and shakers are going to naturally gravitate towards shows with the highest ratings (shows that get the most eyeballs).

Which goes to my question of why “Face The Nation” is still on at least at it currently is comprised. The show’s ratings are always in the basement. Why would they gravitate to a ratings loser?

That comes to the question I asked before. “What is a ratings failure” for the Sunday shows?

As I’ve written before on your blog, I agree with your general comments about niche marketing, although there may be specific cases where it works out better than the average.

Tavis changed his approach with his show on PBS and apparently his show is doing very well.

Tavis’ approached was in an evolutionary process during the time on BET.

Another thing, why put Washington Watch on Sunday? Most Black folks are in church. The 5pm slot might work, but games are still on. Nightly during the week may have a much better chance.

I’ve asked that question in general. When “Lead Story” was on the air, I TIVO’ed it along with “Meet the Press” when Russart was in the big chair. Now I DVR “Fox News Sunday” and might try to catch a “replay” if I have nothing else going on.

I’m looking at the big picture of ratings for cable news during the time period. Let’s do this again.

It was Roland’s job to either maintain or draw more viewers to the show while Campbell was away. For those weeks, he became the face and voice for that show. People lost interest and tuned elsewhere. Now as you pointed out, the same thing was going on with Anderson Cooper and other shows on CNN. So if we are to take your approach and lay the blame on the network itself, fine. Then by going that route you must agree that the talent pool that CNN selected (including Martin) was unable to keep viewers interested. Same could be said for MSNBC.

My question is why are they still on the air? Is it a matter of ratings and/or advertisements or a need to have a news show? Is the ad revenue and/or ratings of “Face The Nation” important? If so, why is there no re-vamping of the show even though the show’s ratings are constantly in the toilet? Is the “success” of these shows the same as that of a show on prime time or the morning during the week? Are the Sunday talking head shows considered “loss leaders” for the networks?

The difference here is that the big networks that have these political shows have become an institution to themselves and are established as the “official” stops for movers and shakers in Washington for decades. If these shows were really as deep in the toilet as you suggest, I doubt very seriously if they would be able to get the advertising they are getting. Average Joes are not looking at these shows on a regular basis. It’s the people who give “Joe” his paycheck. And the commercials reflect that. Plus, the more powerful politicians have proven over and over again that the only time they have something to say to Blacks, Hispanics, etc. directly is when they are either pushing a major bill, or they are trying to get re-elected. In either case they are using almost the same talking points that they gave with the “White” shows. So do I think its a little bold to think that Martin is going to get scoops that none of the other programs are getting? Yes. The NNPA thought that they were automatically going to be treated like Helen Thomas and get “hooked up” once Obama got elected. They got mad at him when he practically ignored them in his initial press conferences. Why? Color had nothing to do with it. Instead, it was all about who had the biggest readership and the widest audience.

Here’s a good example. O’Reily’s show has been rated number one of all cable news shows during the same period. Yet, it’s ratings are much lower than those of “regular” television. Is success defined by how the show does against the competition on cable or is it based on overall ratings?

The ratings system segments it by type of show.
TV One is clearly trying to compete toe to toe with the other Sunday morning political talk shows. According the AP piece, they were trying to avoid that, but then they had to consider the fact that Sunday is a big football day. I’m going to reiterate several points I raised earlier.

1) Sundays are big church days for most Black folks. So I’m willing to bet that if we were to break out the racial demographic of Black viewers of Sunday morning political talk shows, they would be very low. Not having Black faces on the screen or folks addressing Black issues has NOTHING to do with it.
2) TV One is launching this show on the belief that Black folks are now more interested than ever in politics, thanks largely in part to Barack Obama. I say, there is no evidence of that. I do agree that Blacks are more interested in Obama, the person. But to suggest that Blacks are suddenly more interested in let’s say, how Hillary is addressing the crisis down in Honduras, the topics addressed at the G8 summit, China’s push to get rid of the US dollar is off. That’s like saying if we have more Black police officers, Blacks will automatically will become more interested in law enforcement.
3) Just about every time we create this “colored only” portal for news and politics, it has eventually crashed and burned (that holds true more for the national level). I am not saying that such portals are not needed. I’m just saying that it is a proven dumb idea to put it toe to toe against well-established institutions in the same time slot and expect to be on equal footing (other examples outside of television: Blackbird vs. Firefox. Rushmore Drive vs. Google. News and Notes vs. any White-hosted show on NPR, etc). If you suspect that the existing Sunday morning talk shows are “loss leaders” for the networks, then how do you expect TV One to shoulder that show just for one season? That is why it is going to be that much more important for them to have the strong ratings so that they can make their case to advertisers. I also find it funny that in today’s NY Post, Martin is talking about including celebrities in the mix of his political show.
4) Black folks are not going to automatically flock to TV One just because there is a Black man talking politics unless he is very good. Martin was not able to motivate Black viewers to watch him on CNN, so that is why I’m questioning the logic of expecting him to produce better results for TV One. Especially in that slot. I think the week night approach would be much better. But this effort to Blacken up Sunday morning talk shows just because a few political junkies wanna see color rarely produce expected results.

Tavis’ approached was in an evolutionary process during the time on BET.

But he was still on a Black channel with a limited audience. Again, I point back to the fact that he gave that interview to ABC and basically gave BET the finger. Johnson also cited his low ratings at that time. Whether you believe him or not is totally up to you.

I think Washington Watch is a great idea. I just think that there is a much better way to position it so that it can last.

Sorry Roland, but I agree with Duane.

OK, we’re getting somewhere.

Then by going that route you must agree that the talent pool that CNN selected (including Martin) was unable to keep viewers interested. Same could be said for MSNBC.

Correct, but I don’t think you can say there was a loss of viewers BECAUSE of Martin when general viewership was down across the cable news channels.

If these shows were really as deep in the toilet as you suggest, I doubt very seriously if they would be able to get the advertising they are getting.

Look at the numbers for “Face The Nation.” What I’m getting at is, for these Sunday Morning Shows, it’s not just about numbers as it is with the evening hours. So, when I asked “What defines success?”, I WAS being serious.

Correct, but I don’t think you can say there was a loss of viewers BECAUSE of Martin when general viewership was down across the cable news channels.

He hosted the show and was not able to draw or keep interest. Therefore, he shares the blame. If ratings went up, he would be credited for that. Nobody is beating up the Black man here, this is just what it is. The same applies to Anderson Cooper or any other host on that network. Speaking of which, if Cooper was moved to another network and was given a new show, I would expect no different from him, ratings wise.

He hosted the show and was not able to draw or keep interest. Therefore, he shares the blame.
Shares the blame is different from THE blame. And, for me, this isn’t about beating up the Black man. For example, in general, I’ve been questioning the reasons given for the decline in newspaper circulation. I’ve also said that while Fox News is crowing about it’s ratings when compared to other cable news stations, it still is dwarfed by the top 3.

Shares the blame is different from THE blame.

WHAAAAAAAAAT???

Ed (sigh!), Martin shares the blame with the rest of the network and he is blame for that show tanking when he took the chair. This is what I’ve been saying from jump. If ratings went up for that show, he would rightly be credited for that. It works both ways.

Just never mind.