Reporters Push for Context in Cable Pricing Debate

By Vandana Sinha
December 6, 2005 02:40 PM

As cable companies and advocacy groups battle over whether to split cable channel lineups into an "a la carte" menu, business reporters are left with their own choices on how to cover the story.

Most of them led with the FCC's switched stance on the debate. Last year, the commission issued a report that said making consumers pay separately for each channel they want, while forgoing the ones they don't, will cost them more in the end. Last week, new FCC chief Kevin Martin refuted that report, prepared during his predecessor's term, saying cable customers would save money in an a la carte channel scenario.

Many business stories reported Martin's remarks that the previous report was "inaccurate." At least one reporter pushed to find out why.

Paul Davidson, a reporter for the Money section at USA TODAY, heard that testimony and found it "oblique." He asked for a copy of the report, and was told it wasn't available. Still pressing to understand what led to the different conclusions, he called up FCC sources and after asking several times, had them explain on background.

"I try to drill down," he says. "You are talking about what people pay for their cable service. It's important to give specifics. That's what it's about."

As a result, he had a main story and a sidebar that described three different assumptions between the old and new FCC studies.

Hype can have a way of haunting this story as well -- business reporters served their readers well by putting Martin's statements into context. Yes, it was a reversal of the FCC's earlier stance, which is big news, but it also was one of three options that Martin outlined for legislators last week.

Another significant point of context: There's a very good chance nothing will actually change. Many business stories included the fact that the FCC has no authority over turning cable a la carte. That's up to Congress, and analysts said in several stories that seemed unlikely.

"The chances of the a la carte idea being legislated are pretty low," Davidson says. "You should note that pretty high in the story, or as high as you can."

So as business reporters concentrated on Martin's rhetorical recommendations, Liz Ruskin says some may have missed the human drama.

"The general audience might not be interested in what Martin says -- it's not in his hands," says Ruskin, Washington correspondent for the Anchorage Daily News, where her story described how the debate has played out in primetime television and blockbuster movies.

Instead, she pointed to the latent rivalries between the cable, satellite, radio and broadcast network companies that testified, as one kept volleying for more restrictions on the other and more equality for themselves.

"There were hilarious and obvious competitive pressures that I saw in that room," she says.

Business reporters also tried to put this into chronological context, noting that this debate is nowhere near new. And that takes explaining why cable companies continue to rely on the same business model, despite the repeated criticism.

"People's unhappiness with this is not new. It's gone on for years, decades," says Leslie Brooks Suzukamo, a telecom reporter at the St. Paul's Pioneer Press. "You can't get away with pissing off the customer. So you're doing it for a good reason. Usually, there's a very good business reason behind this."

He found that reason by talking to an industry analyst at Forrester Research. Often times, he says, research groups can help fill in gaps in interviews with even the best Wall Street analysts. Taking those extra steps ensures readers aren't left with unanswered questions.

"You had to explain it and show it, so people could have an 'a-ha' moment," Suzukamo says. "I'm not saying they're going to like it anymore, but at least they understand it. The point is to pull back the hood and see the engine."

After talking to analysts, cable companies, advocacy groups and legislators, business reporters should add one more voice to the mix, and that's the programmers. The companies providing content for those cable channels have a stake in this conversation, as well as in the way cable channels are priced. Call on them for answers -- and make them answer to their critics.

Regardless of angle, however, the audience must remain the average consumer. "You just want to explain it as clearly as you can from the consumers' point of view," Davidson says. Otherwise, "you can get lost in the politics of it."

Please enter your friend's e-mail address

Please enter your e-mail address

If you would like to include a message, please add it here:

Copyright © 2008 Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism