Why did ABC run the money-losing 9/11 series?

(Posted as a comment here).
People have been have been wondering why ABC ran their money-losing, credibility-destroying 9/11 series. I don’t think that there’s any mystery.
I’ve said this many time in many places, but I think that in most of the media, the financial management makes the political-coverage decisions for operations management. Tax breaks and deregulation moves can make an enormous difference on a big company’s bottom line, and the Republicans deliver.
We know that the Scaife, Moon, and Murdoch operations are ideologically right-wing, but the non-ideological media operations all have Republican financial interests.
It’s a mistake zeroing in on individual writers and editors. The problem is at the highest management level. The flunkies whose names you know are just doing what’s expected of them.
Graham at the Post and Sulzberger at the Times both chair both boards — the financial board and the operations board. The financial board rules.
I’ve been saying this for a year and a half, and no one’s picked up on it — not even as a discussion topic. People are afraid of Graham and Sulzberger, I think.

1 thought on “Why did ABC run the money-losing 9/11 series?

  1. Very important points about why certain shows manage to be shown. That 9/11 “docudrama” was really terrible on all levels, stick figures, cartoon-like stereotypes, no real drama, childish, badly written, so on and so on. There’s no real reason why a piece of propaganda can’t be well written and convincing, if you think about it. Whoever insisted on running it was really off the wall with this one. But that’s true of a lot of stuff that gets shown on ABC. They could use some new management if they really think they’re reaching anyone not already so totally convinced they’ll put up with watching garbage.

Comments are closed.