Turn on cable TV and the U.S. war with Iraq is more or less a fait accompli.
On CNN, the banners scream: "Showdown: Iraq." At rival MSNBC, there's a slight twist: "Showdown with Saddam." On scrappy Fox News, it's: "Target Iraq: Disarming Saddam."
Talk to network executives here or south of the border, and it's not a question of whether there will be a battle royale in the Middle East, but when. Consensus among news types is it's going to happen soon, and it's going to be ugly.
And as always happens, one of the first casualties of an Iraq war will be the TV networks' bottom lines. TV sources estimate this latest U.S.-led fight will cost CTV and Global about $1-million a week. The price tag for CBC's coverage is closer to $3-million a week.
"The assumption that a war translates into commercial revenue and ad revenue is wrong," says Tony Burman, editor-in-chief of CBC News. "In reality, what we're doing, and I assume the other networks are too, is providing essentially commercial-free programming. You don't run commercials during war coverage.
"But the possibility or likelihood of conflict is not a surprise. We have been expecting it and we have been putting the money aside for it."
In the United States, the costs are exponentially higher. In the early days of an Iraq war, media pundits estimate round-the-clock coverage (and by rote, suspension of all advertising) could cost cable news networks such as AOL Time Warner Inc.'s CNN, News Corp.'s Fox News Channel, and MSNBC between $2-million (U.S.) and $4-million a day. CNN executives have said it has allocated $30-million to $35-million for the additional cost of covering a war.
The executives are basing these estimates on past experience. During the first three days of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, NBC lost $4-million. For this war, the network is estimating its total costs could be $45-million. When advertising was suspending following the Sept. 11 attacks, the big three U.S. networks -- NBC, CBS and ABC -- lost a collective $1-billion in advertising revenue.
Advertisers do not want to be associated with news stories as grim and horrific as war reports.
"The advertisers just pull out," says Kevin Newman, national anchor for Global in Vancouver. "They say, 'No thanks. Let's get it off the air.' "
Then the news organizations have to grapple with something Newman calls war inflation. "A feed out of Baghdad that we can get for $2,500 [Canadian]today could conceivably cost $10,000 in another month," says Newman, who worked for ABC News for seven years. "Trying to budget for that eventuality is very difficult. You can't truly know what the cost of the coverage of a war will be. In the early days, advertisers pull out, so you have costs increasing and revenue decreasing. So then it becomes a question of how long it goes on. How you sustain everything. No one has answers for that."
Global, for one, is trying to allay some of the costs by pooling coverage with its print partners at the National Post and its Southam newspaper chain. Ditto at CTV, who can co-ordinate with its print affiliates at The Globe and Mail. Still, everyone is going to be suffering heavy losses in the early weeks.
In the short term, there is little chance to recover those costs. Even after the networks return to their regular commercial breaks, many sponsors don't. Most television networks, newspapers and newsmagazines just accept the losses and hope that interest in the war will spur longer-term circulation and ratings.
The past has proven that times of crisis can provide an opportunity for TV networks to build their reputations and boost viewership. The first Persian Gulf war was a ratings and financial boon for CNN. Its reporters, such as Peter Arnett, Bernard Shaw and John Holliman, became international media stars. CNN's ratings jumped fivefold during the war. In the first 24 hours, the network's audience went up an astounding 22-fold, outdrawing CBS.
Although commercials were removed from broadcasts in the initial days of the war, they eventually returned. And in late February, 1991, with the war still in progress, CNN boosted its ad rates to cash in on its increased audience figures. A 30-second spot that cost $3,500 to $5,000 in January, 1991, spiralled to $30,000 by the end of February.
Clearly, if they deliver the goods, news networks can stem the red ink and make a profit from war. It's tough to pull off, though. And with this war, CNN is no longer a sure-fire ratings winner.
Fox News, the personality-driven, right-wing cable channel in the United States, has passed CNN in audience figures. A war -- red meat for CNN and its army of correspondents -- is viewed as an opportunity for it to take back top spot.
Over all, the networks are reluctant to be specific about coverage plans for fear of giving up their competitive edge. The media arsenal being amassed in the United States dwarfs what Canadian networks can muster. For instance, CBS is reportedly planning on a force of 100 to 150 in the war zone, in addition to support from bureaus in spots including Israel and London. The other broadcasters have similar plans, and CNN may have as many as 450 personnel covering various aspects of the war.
CBC, CTV, and Global will have a mere fraction of that kind of journalistic firepower. Still the broadcast executives in Canada believe they have the journalistic wherewithal and resources needed to compete with U.S. networks. Canadian viewers, they insist, largely oppose the United States moving unilaterally against Iraq. And the networks are confident audiences here -- at least after the first week of round-the-clock news reports -- will want to watch domestic network coverage.
"This is an example of where networks in Canada, and newspapers as well, come to the fore in terms of providing a Canadian perspective," says CBC's Burman. "I think we are going to find that American television in particular, but also American newspapers, will become very jingoistic and focus very much on their narrow American interests.
"And I think for a story like this which frightens, affects and moves Canadians as much as it does other people, Canadians really do rely on their news organizations, including their networks, more than ever before."
Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, says CTV's war coverage will probably be its biggest undertaking ever. He adds that CTV's 11 p.m. report with Lloyd Robertson leads the CBC and Global national newscasts in ratings.
"CTV has made a very strong commitment to news," Hurst says. "Ten years ago, the CBC was the place where most Canadians turned. It's no longer the case. During the Columbia [space shuttle]tragedy a few weeks ago, Canadians tuned to CTV and its local stations, two to one, over Global in Ontario. The CBC didn't put it on the main network. In times of crises, CTV has become the leader."
Andrew Cohen, associate professor at Carleton University's School of Journalism in Ottawa, won't hazard a guess which network -- public or private -- will win the ratings war during this crisis. But he adds that Canadian networks don't have to worry about trying to compete with the U.S. media machine. "Canadian newscasts have a style and integrity that -- once the early days pass -- viewers here will return to. Our networks won't have the fire power of the American networks, but they don't need to. Canadians turn to Canadian news for the stories they want. Our calling card with our viewers has always been our journalistic integrity."
Global's Newman says his organization has taken a graduated approach to building its team of reporters overseas. His network also has struck partnerships with CNN and NBC to use their satellite facilities.
"The tricky thing for television when war begins is the infrastructure we rely on to broadcast usually collapses. People turn the power off. So you need to be self-sufficient with as many backup plans as possible."
Corrections
On the day the space shuttle Columbia exploded, CBC-TV went on air with the news and stayed with the story all day. Incorrect information appeared in the Globe and on March 1.
(Tuesday, March 11, 2003, Page R2)
Gayle MacDonald