Video business news done better

I recently wrote about the problem that most of CNBC's anchors have with understanding that businesses are collections of people making and selling things, not pieces of paper to be bought and sold on Wall Street. Like a lot of people, I get ideas at 2 a.m., and last night, I wrote one down. Here's the elevator pitch:

The idea is a video news service that focuses on the needs of businesspeople, not investors. There would be multiple channels, with each channel focused on a single industry. Some of the potential channels include:

• Automobile
• Health Care
• Retail (possibly multiple channels)
• Agriculture
• Banking
• Insurance

Editors in a central location would assign and screen stories produced by a combination of full-time field editors and stringers (part-time and contract reporters.) Trade publications and newspapers that already cover these industries could participate by contributing stories; in return, they would share in ad revenues and have the right to republish the stories on their websites. Whenever viewers tune in, they would see the latest news report (continuously refreshed) and have access to longer, in-depth reports on a variety of industry-related subjects.

There would be a dual revenue model: Subscription fees (the service would be business, not consumer, oriented) and advertising.

Most importantly, the service would be available exclusively by phone, not PC. That means that mobile service providers, such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile would share in the subscription revenues and participate in marketing.

So, who should do this? Possibly CNBC (NBC Universal has all of the pieces to make it happen,) but they probably won't. Fox or Bloomberg would be better candidates, but in both cases, it would require a radical rethinking of their businesses, shifting from investors to business operators. One or more of the major trade publishers, such as Crain, Reed Business, Nielsen or United Business Media, could make it happen. The New York Times or Dow Jones are also possibilities. The point is that there are no technical limitations making this idea impossible, or even terribly difficult to implement.

Can we get this deal done, please?

I've been watching the stock market yo-yo and the liquidity markets freeze up while we wait for the on-again, off-again bailout plan. At this point, tt doesn't matter which party was responsible for the failure--either one could have produced the 12 additional votes that were needed for passage. The U.S. Senate plans to vote tonight on a modified bailout plan that keeps the basics of the plan voted on last Monday, but adds some tax benefits for individuals and small businesses, and raises the maximum per-account level of FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000. Whether these sweeteners are enough to get the 12 additional votes needed in the House, let alone hold onto the votes that the original bill got, remains to be seen.

The lack of safeguards that I complained about in a post on my "Feldman File" blog was addressed in the version of the bill that originally went to the Senate. While I despise what got us to this place--the almost complete disconnection of capital from its underlying risk that's led us to having no idea how much more than a trillion dollars of securitized mortgages and other debts are really worth--we have to act. We've got to make sure that people can still get home, car and student loans, and that businesses can buy inventory, meet their payrolls and keep their doors open.

As I write this, it appears that "the tide is turning" with members of the House who voted against the original bill. Their "call ratio" from constituents is turning in favor of the plan, thus giving them the political cover that they need to vote for the revised bill. However, I won't count on anything until the bill passes both Houses of Congress and is signed into law by the President.