Why is CNN virtually the only network displayed at airports?

[basquebromance]

If enough people protest to airport authorities this will change

DO YOUR PART!

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Screw that...let's go whole hog and request Al Aribiya!

 

[Snouter]

It is troubling FAKE NEWS CNN has a deal with the government to showcase their bullshit fake news...

 

[fncceo]

They give a discount or provide the service free to airports. Most commercial subscribers pay much more than residential for the same service.

It's a good business model for CNN.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why is CNN virtually the only network displayed at airports?

Well, according to a 2017 U. of Missouri study, the most trusted news sources are:

​

Of the sources noted that offer 24/7/365 news and information reporting and that is offered globally, AFAIK, the choices are CNN and the BBC, "maaybe" Reuters too, but I'm not aware of Reuters offering a global (or even U.S.-only) cable TV offering even though it does produce video news content. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that airports choose CNN over the BBC, especially in the U.S., because the majority of airline travelers are American. That said, one doesn't have to consume the airport offered CNN programming. Many U.S. airports offer Clear Channel; indeed all of the major U.S. airports I've been to do.


As go the major cable news organizations, they all do a fine job on news reporting. Where they differ is in (1) the nature of commentary and analysis they offer and (2) the extent to which their programming is comprised of news, analysis (neutral) and commentary (conclusions based on analysis -- biased) . CNN (in the U.S.) offers slightly less overall commentary than do Fox and MSNBC [1], so that may also have something to do with CNN's being dominant in the U.S. airport television space.

Outside the U.S., CNN (which is branded as CNN International and has a completely different programming lineup and format) is nearly all (~90%) news and professional expert (not professional pundit) analysis....that is to say, it's who, what, when, where, how, and rational explications of why if enough is understood/known to make any such remarks. CNN International also spends a fair amount of time having experts share analysis, i.e., whatever be the rationally sound/cogent implications, constraints, and so on of the "who, what, when, etc." and various prioritizations of the "who, what, when, etc."

Simply put, CNN International's broadcasts and content are what allow CNN to assert that it's "the most trusted name in news." About 325M people in the U.S. see CNN. The remainder of the world's ~8 billion people see CNN International.



Why the difference in content? I suspect the answer is Fox's presence in the U.S. Fox introduced the "cable news as entertainment" model whereby cable news content is structured to attract a predictable demographic that advertisers can in turn rely upon and, as appropriate to the product being promoted, develop advertising messages or place advertising messages so as to maximize their returns from having bought advertising time on Fox. The "cable news as entertainment" model, in keeping with the general paradigm for entertainment, doesn't challenge viewers' preconceived notions about anything material.

At the time of implementing that model, Fox's execs, recognizing that the U.S. already has more than enough people who self-identify as conservative, made a deliberate choice to tell conservative viewers what they were already inclined to accept. The strategy wasn't to skew the news; the strategy was attract reliable quantities of viewers so as to, in turn, attract ad revenue away from other networks. The tactic for realizing the strategy is delivering messages that people, in one way or another enjoy receiving. Hence, news as entertainment.

Remember, ever since news production and delivery became something that had to happen in a financially solvent and enduring way in a competitive marketplace, cable news organizations had to become not "merely profitable," but rather "competitively profitable."

What's the difference? In a "merely profitable" environment, a firm's ad prices increase as the cost of producing and delivering content increases. In a competitively profitable" environment, when a competitor develops a "hook," a differentiating factor, that attracts customers, competing firms must at least match the "hook" if they are to remain in business, remain competitive. In both environments, a firm's ad prices depend also on viewership quantities and demographics.

Fox's "hook" to make news become in some measure entertaining was commentary, namely delivering tons of it as opposed to tons of news and analysis. That it worked should surprise nobody: news is what it is -- the body of information any given network can present is the same, and one can get it from the over-the-air networks. What those networks cannot deliver is tons of commentary and they're not going to change that because they have "conventional" entertainment programming -- sitcoms, dramas, game shows, etc. -- to attract viewers to their networks. A cable news network, on the other hand, has to attract viewers to one general category of content, news and information. It stands to reason than that if the news is entertaining in some way, more viewers will tune in than were the network to deliver "dry" news.


Recognizing that modern cable news offerings all have some measure of entertainment bent to them, which for news is the commentary portion of a network's program offerings, airports basically have five choices:​

1. MSNBC -- their entertainment has a strongly liberal bias.
2. Fox -- their entertainment has a strongly conservative bias.
3. CNN -- their entertainment has a mix of both
4. Clear Channel
5. Something else -- generally pure (conventional) entertainment.

Were I managing the commercial portion of a U.S. airport, I'd go with CNN or Clear Channel or both, mainly because I know that the people patronizing the airport are typically only there for a brief time and want to be brought up to speed on whatever they can before boarding a plane. Were I running the general aviation section of an airport, I'd do the same thing that's done in many general aviation lounges: put the remote control there and let passengers deal with it on their own. [2]

General Aviation sitting areas at Reagan

So the relative diversity of CNN's content in the U.S. may also have something to do with why it's the most commonly seen channel in commercial aviation sections of U.S. airports. I don't imagine most (or even many) Americans traveling in the U.S. would want to want the BBC (BBC America is an entertainment network,not a news network). Is the UK's news all that relevant to most Americans?


Notes:​

1. CNN's daytime programming -- when a calamity doesn't supercede everything else -- tends to be:
   • Early Morning (before 6:00 a.m.) --> news, analysis and very little commentary, mainly because most pundits and newsmakers who might appear and offer commentary are still asleep or just waking and getting ready for their day.
   • Morning "drive" (6:00 - 9:00 a.m.) --> news, analysis, interviews, with some commentary. Most of the commentary in this period comes from the people interviewed, newsmakers, with the program anchors playing "devil's advocate," which is often the only option because this is the period that newsmakers slot to appear on whatever network they feel will most comprehensively (given the interviewee's target audience and rhetorical objective for appearing in the first place) present the speaker's POV/message.
   • Midday (9:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.) -- news, analysis, interviews, with some commentary. Commentary during the early part of this period mostly, but not always, comes from two individuals on opposing sides of a matter or from the newsmakers whom reporters and program anchors interview. By 5:00 p.m., commentary is almost always delivered by at least two individuals having opposing points of view. That said, this period's content is more news and analysis than it is commentary.
   • Evening "drive" (8:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.) -- news, analysis, and commentary. There aren't many live interviews in this period for obvious reasons -- the newsmakers whom news anchors and reporters would interview are doing what everyone does at this time of day...eating, socializing with friends and family, and sleeping. In this period, the program content consists of a news segment and/or analysis segment running about three minutes or so (less than about three minutes for simpler topics and closer to about three minutes for more complex ones), followed by commentary from a panel -- typically ranging from four to eight individuals -- comprised of folks having a variety of stances on the matter being discussed. Without question, commentary is the vast majority of what viewers see/hear during this period. The hour's content generally breaks down as follows:
     -- 13 - 17 minutes of advertising
     -- Anchor's opening editorial: ~3 minutes
     -- News reporting and analysis (per topic, w/about five topics covered per hour): 15 minutes
     -- Commentary: This comprises ~72% to ~74% of the programming content
     
     Since about 2016, the panels have had more conservatives (typically one more) than liberals so that Trumpsters, as opposed to classical conservatives, also have representation on the panel. For issues where Trumpsters and classical conservatives agree, there's usually not an "extra" conservative on the panel. Whether there are more classical conservatives or more Trumpsters depends on which faction is viewed as having initiative on advancing a given position/policy; generally, the faction having the initiative has less representation. (CNN does it that way because it doesn't want to be the initiative holder's platform.) The same approach is used with regard to liberals when there are material discrepancies between classical liberals and progressive liberals.
     
     The program anchor moderates the discussion by asking contrarian "what about this" questions of the panel members. That is, a liberal panelist will be asked a "what about this" question that bids them to address one of the liberal argument's strengths, whereas a liberal panelist gets questions asking them to rebut a conservative strong point.
   • From evening "drive" to early morning, in the U.S., CNN airs rebroadcasts of the evening drive programming.
     
   • Outside the U.S., CNN's content approach is completely different. It's CNN International and it's overwhelmingly news and news analysis and very little commentary. The only predominantly news analysis and commentary programming I recall ever having noticed on CNN International is Fareed Zakaria's GPS.
2. Generally, unless one sits right in front of the television, one can't even hear it. Every once in a while, someone distant from the screen may ask the person having the remote to increase the volume. That said, one doesn't sit for long in general aviation anyway. Truly the only reason I've ever spent any material period of time in the general aviation waiting area is weather and having neither will or reason to go elsewhere while the weather passes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Denver Int'l Adds Customized Television Network | Airport Improvement Magazine

 

[TheOldSchool]

Probably because every single airport of any note is in a liberal enclave

 

[IsaacNewton]

CNN provides news, whereas a channel like Fox News provides propaganda and infomercials disguised as opinion. The spin conservatives put on 'real news' is nonsense to be ignored. They prefer THE Fake News channel Fox News. The grandaddy and still champion of all things fake.

There is no false equivalency elsewhere, the closest right wing whacko world of Fox News would be MSNBC and they only are in the conversation because they present reality, which has a decidedly progressive bent to it, with more vigor than other stations.

CNN is still the America's most trusted for facts and journalism.