Hometown News

Even if anyone did introduce a new look, I think we all know it'd just be a slightly (and I mean slightly) different spin on the same flat, minimalistic and boxy look that everyone else has been using for the past decade.

There are multiple factors to blame if we're going to do a full accounting of what killed traditional TV. I agree that greed is definitely one of them. Overpriced cable/satellite bills, extreme and intrusive levels of advertising, etc. It simultaneously got more expensive and more monetized while being less worth it. You could argue that the introduction of ads to cable TV, even though the original premise of paying for cable was that you were paying to avoid advertising, was the "original sin" that doomed the future of television. I posted this theory a few months ago, and I still believe it: I also think the historic laziness of American TV presentation is a big part of it. Compared to other countries that had idents, live announcers (sometimes on camera a la MTV's VJs) and all sorts of other extras that made TV feel like a big event, the presentation of American TV has always been minimalist and impersonal. In the long run, I think it's cost the networks dearly since they never developed the same brand loyalty as, say, the BBC that might have helped them hold out for longer against streaming and make the eventual transition more graceful. That laziness and lack of ambition extended to the programming, too. Networks started cancelling shows before they could even find an audience because it was safer to just recycle the same formats over and over again. Cable networks that started out with specific visions all drifted into being the same general-entertainment channels with the same programming before decaying into a worse version of Netflix binge-watching with ads every five minutes. And of course, the lack of local programming besides news doesn't help either. Most broadcast stations' schedules are full of syndicated crap that clearly nobody misses on streaming. Streaming is already heading in the same direction. It's becoming more expensive and fragmented, more encroached with advertising, too quick to cancel shows, and so on. It shows that the real problem was never traditional TV itself, it was the corporations behind it who simply can't help themselves.

I didn't think about that, but it's a good point too. I'd add that the non-news programming (especially syndication and cable) has become mind-numbingly repetitive in its own way. American TV has always been lazy in terms of its presentation, but it seems like around the mid-2010s, streaming became an excuse for the linear TV industry to give up and become just as lazy with everything else.

I don't think it has anything to do with Fox News. They started de-emphasizing network branding when NBC bought WTVJ, and I assume they've stuck with that approach ever since then because it's worked for them.

At the risk of getting off-topic, if I recall correctly, New Zealand is the only other country in the world that does allow pharma ads on TV. It's at least the only other developed country. And even there, it was only legally formalized in 2023, and a lot of people (including doctors) want it banned. The market in Europe is a bit more complex than you're making it out to be. Ad revenue is falling and there's still plenty of angst about streaming replacing linear TV someday. It's also not unheard of for networks in Europe, like Channel 4 in the UK, to make cutbacks as severe as what CBS is currently doing. Channel 4 just went through a few years of greenlighting significantly less programming than usual and cancelling series they had greenlit during production because the money wasn't there to support it. I have a theory about why it still doesn't seem quite as dire for traditional TV over there. European countries were always much better at making TV feel like an event consistently. Just look at all the extra effort they've always put into presentation - the idents, live announcers introducing the shows, etc. It sounds silly, but psychologically, I do think it matters to viewers on a subconscious level. Outside of the local news (which itself is becoming increasingly centralized), American TV has always lacked that personal touch. Linear TV in America and in countries with a more Americanized style of television seem much more vulnerable to streaming because there's so little to differentiate it besides the negative aspects: more ads and less choice.

That's a bit extreme, but I could see the networks' late-night lineups gravitating towards a mix of dirt-cheap experimental programming, movies, and imported shows, somewhat like ITV regions in the UK when they made their first attempts at late-night programming in the '80s and '90s. I don't see the classic late-night talk shows lasting much longer, that's for sure. There's really nothing they still offer that podcasts don't.

These look the same as any other modern newscast's lower third. Same stock rectangular look, same generic font.

For MSNBC, it might be that their opinion shows are hurting the brand of both the NBC network news and the affiliates' local news operations by association while no longer bringing in enough ratings to justify it. I'm just guessing, but I do recall reading years ago that FOX affiliates have complained about viewers confusing them with FOX News Channel, so it isn't a farfetched idea. I'm less sure what the strategy is with USA and CNBC. USA seems to just be a dumping ground now for the sporting events that used to air on NBCSN, so maybe they think they can just move all that content to Peacock and viewers will get used to it. There isn't an obvious replacement for CNBC and unlike the others, it's an international brand.

They've been propped up almost single-handedly by pharmaceutical advertising for years now. If RFK Jr. does get those ads banned like he wants to, I don't know how these cable networks will actually make money anymore.

More dismal numbers for MSNBC: They are basically getting no viewers under the age of 55 anymore. Comcast might actually have a hard time finding a buyer at this rate.

FOX is only as dominant as it is because there's less competition in their niche. MSNBC and CNN cannibalizing each other's ratings is likely accelerating both networks' decline. Ultimately, though, 24/7 cable news is an outdated model and I'm sure we'll eventually see FOX start to decline as well. It's not like young people are watching them either.

I think people in general are just tired of the "all Trump, all the time" monomania on these networks. It's been almost a decade of the same topics on a loop. It makes it that much harder for them to compete with YouTube, Twitch, podcasts, social media, etc. where there's actual choices, not the same programming over and over again.

Doesn't CBS still own Channel 5 in the UK and Network 10 in Australia? If I was running CBS, I might have tried importing series from those networks to fill the daytime lineup rather than commissioning a new soap that's probably going to fail.

Maybe not:

This is pretty common in other countries, including the UK, Canada, and Australia, so there's precedent for it.