-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
ABC decides on anchor replacements
- Thread starter easttxtv
- Start date
> AP and CNBC are both reporting that World News Tonight will
> go with a co-anchoring arrangement with Elizabeth Vargas and
> Bob Woodruff; no start date was mentioned.
>
> Also WNT will air live in 3 time zones, including in the
> west.
>
The Report On The ABC Website Says The New Team Will Take Over
On Tuesday January 3rd.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1373524<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by MCNDRWS on 12/05/05 04:38 PM.</FONT></P>
> go with a co-anchoring arrangement with Elizabeth Vargas and
> Bob Woodruff; no start date was mentioned.
>
> Also WNT will air live in 3 time zones, including in the
> west.
>
The Report On The ABC Website Says The New Team Will Take Over
On Tuesday January 3rd.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1373524<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by MCNDRWS on 12/05/05 04:38 PM.</FONT></P>
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
I am not surprised that Elizabeth Vargas got one of the anchor slots. I am a little surpised Bob Woodruff got a co-anchor slot. I thought Vargas would anchor "World News Tonight" solo.
I'm also not surprised that Charles Gibson is staying at "Good Morning America". My guess is that the reason Gibson did not get the "WNT" anchor desk may be this: ABC may believe that Katie Couric will soon leave NBC's "Today" show, and that by keeping the "GMA" co-host team of Gibson and Diane Sawyer intact, the show would have a real chance of becoming the nation's top-rated network morning news show----and possibly also become the nation's dominant network morning news show as well.
I also thought that despite staying at "GMA", Gibson would become ABC's prime anchor for live coverage of special news events and breaking news. But I have read nothing so far suggesting that would happen. Given how well he anchored coverage of the death of Pope John Paul II, the inauguration of Pope Benedict XVI, and this past Summer's space shuttle mission, I feel that Gibson, and not Woodruff and/or Vargas, should be ABC's resident anchor for special news events. He's earned it. Hopefully, that will be the case.
Although it would break a tradition of recent times for a network's evening-news anchor to not serve as that network's prime anchor for special news events and breaking news, it's not unprecedented. Walter Cronkite anchored special news events for CBS for almost a decade prior to becoming anchor of the "Evening News". Although Chet Huntley and David Brinkley anchored NBC's evening newscast for fourteen years and much of that network's special news event coverage during that time, it was Frank McGee who anchored NBC's space coverage during the 1960's (although Huntley and Brinkley did occassionally appear to do commentary or easays; sometimes, one of them would be sent to Cape Canaveral for the launch). And at ABC, Howard K. Smith anchored or co-anchored most of the network's special news events and breaking news for several years during the 1960's before becoming co-anchor of that network's evening news program.
The idea of having a live feed for the West Coast is one that I think is long overdue; don't be surprised if come January, the CBS and NBC evening news programs also launch a live West Copast feed every night.
I'm also not surprised that Charles Gibson is staying at "Good Morning America". My guess is that the reason Gibson did not get the "WNT" anchor desk may be this: ABC may believe that Katie Couric will soon leave NBC's "Today" show, and that by keeping the "GMA" co-host team of Gibson and Diane Sawyer intact, the show would have a real chance of becoming the nation's top-rated network morning news show----and possibly also become the nation's dominant network morning news show as well.
I also thought that despite staying at "GMA", Gibson would become ABC's prime anchor for live coverage of special news events and breaking news. But I have read nothing so far suggesting that would happen. Given how well he anchored coverage of the death of Pope John Paul II, the inauguration of Pope Benedict XVI, and this past Summer's space shuttle mission, I feel that Gibson, and not Woodruff and/or Vargas, should be ABC's resident anchor for special news events. He's earned it. Hopefully, that will be the case.
Although it would break a tradition of recent times for a network's evening-news anchor to not serve as that network's prime anchor for special news events and breaking news, it's not unprecedented. Walter Cronkite anchored special news events for CBS for almost a decade prior to becoming anchor of the "Evening News". Although Chet Huntley and David Brinkley anchored NBC's evening newscast for fourteen years and much of that network's special news event coverage during that time, it was Frank McGee who anchored NBC's space coverage during the 1960's (although Huntley and Brinkley did occassionally appear to do commentary or easays; sometimes, one of them would be sent to Cape Canaveral for the launch). And at ABC, Howard K. Smith anchored or co-anchored most of the network's special news events and breaking news for several years during the 1960's before becoming co-anchor of that network's evening news program.
The idea of having a live feed for the West Coast is one that I think is long overdue; don't be surprised if come January, the CBS and NBC evening news programs also launch a live West Copast feed every night.
> > AP and CNBC are both reporting that World News Tonight
> will
> > go with a co-anchoring arrangement with Elizabeth Vargas
> and
> > Bob Woodruff;
Now Charles Gibson's talents on being a substitute for Peter Jennings has come to nothing as it appears. Vargas and Woodruff only hosted World News Tonight about a dozen times combined since Peter Jennings' departure. With this news,he gets shafted yet again.
It accomplished one thing in that Charles Gibson will never become a full time anchor of World News Tonight. They just used him that's all.
> will
> > go with a co-anchoring arrangement with Elizabeth Vargas
> and
> > Bob Woodruff;
Now Charles Gibson's talents on being a substitute for Peter Jennings has come to nothing as it appears. Vargas and Woodruff only hosted World News Tonight about a dozen times combined since Peter Jennings' departure. With this news,he gets shafted yet again.
It accomplished one thing in that Charles Gibson will never become a full time anchor of World News Tonight. They just used him that's all.
M
Mark_Giardina
Guest
Re: Smart Move On ABC's Part
I say that because if CBS does decide to go after Katie Couric, ABC will already have its female anchor in place with Elizabeth Vargas.
I’m really not surprised that Vargas did get the co-anchor position. She has done a good job since the death of Peter Jennings. The teaming up with Bob Woodruff was a surprise however. I thought ABC learned its lesson about duel anchors after the Reasoner/Walters and Reynolds/Robinson/Jennings eras.
As for Charlie Gibson, while he would have made an excellent WNT anchor, it should come as no surprise that the network wanted to keep him on GMA since that show is catching up with "The Today Show."
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
I say that because if CBS does decide to go after Katie Couric, ABC will already have its female anchor in place with Elizabeth Vargas.
I’m really not surprised that Vargas did get the co-anchor position. She has done a good job since the death of Peter Jennings. The teaming up with Bob Woodruff was a surprise however. I thought ABC learned its lesson about duel anchors after the Reasoner/Walters and Reynolds/Robinson/Jennings eras.
As for Charlie Gibson, while he would have made an excellent WNT anchor, it should come as no surprise that the network wanted to keep him on GMA since that show is catching up with "The Today Show."
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
N
Nertz
Guest
> AP and CNBC are both reporting that World News Tonight will
> go with a co-anchoring arrangement with Elizabeth Vargas and
> Bob Woodruff; no start date was mentioned.
Does this mean revolving anchors or something like the ill fated Dan Rather Connie Chung pairing of the early 90s on CBS?
> go with a co-anchoring arrangement with Elizabeth Vargas and
> Bob Woodruff; no start date was mentioned.
Does this mean revolving anchors or something like the ill fated Dan Rather Connie Chung pairing of the early 90s on CBS?
> > AP and CNBC are both reporting that World News Tonight
> will
> > go with a co-anchoring arrangement with Elizabeth Vargas
> and
> > Bob Woodruff; no start date was mentioned.
>
> Does this mean revolving anchors or something like the ill
> fated Dan Rather Connie Chung pairing of the early 90s on
> CBS?
>
the latter
I like the two individually, but time will tell how they will work as a team.
> will
> > go with a co-anchoring arrangement with Elizabeth Vargas
> and
> > Bob Woodruff; no start date was mentioned.
>
> Does this mean revolving anchors or something like the ill
> fated Dan Rather Connie Chung pairing of the early 90s on
> CBS?
>
the latter
I like the two individually, but time will tell how they will work as a team.
> I am not surprised that Elizabeth Vargas got one of the
> anchor slots. I am a little surpised Bob Woodruff got a
> co-anchor slot. I thought Vargas would anchor "World News
> Tonight" solo.
You have to wonder if there still isn't some sexism there - the only two women to anchor a weeknight newscast were part of teams. They're allowed on weekends or morning shows, but not for that prime showcase...
> I'm also not surprised that Charles Gibson is staying at
> "Good Morning America". My guess is that the reason Gibson
> did not get the "WNT" anchor desk may be this: ABC may
> believe that Katie Couric will soon leave NBC's "Today"
> show, and that by keeping the "GMA" co-host team of Gibson
> and Diane Sawyer intact, the show would have a real chance
> of becoming the nation's top-rated network morning news
> show----and possibly also become the nation's dominant
> network morning news show as well.
As far as the networks are concerned, top-rated equals dominant; they could carry two hours of reading the phone book and the network wouldn't care if it got good ratings.
> Although it would break a tradition of recent times for a
> network's evening-news anchor to not serve as that network's
> prime anchor for special news events and breaking news, it's
> not unprecedented. Walter Cronkite anchored special news
> events for CBS for almost a decade prior to becoming anchor
> of the "Evening News". Although Chet Huntley and David
> Brinkley anchored NBC's evening newscast for fourteen years
> and much of that network's special news event coverage
> during that time, it was Frank McGee who anchored NBC's
> space coverage during the 1960's (although Huntley and
> Brinkley did occassionally appear to do commentary or
> easays; sometimes, one of them would be sent to Cape
> Canaveral for the launch).
That was, according to Reuven Frank's book, because H&B didn't give a damn about space and just read off what was in the research books they were given. They were very happy to let McGee handle it - which he did very well - just showing up for big events.
> The idea of having a live feed for the West Coast is one
> that I think is long overdue; don't be surprised if come
> January, the CBS and NBC evening news programs also launch a
> live West Copast feed every night.
>
In the 70s, CBS tried doing inserts with Terry Drinkwater that were put in the Cronkite newscast to update stories or replace stories mostly of interest to the East/Midwest with more on West stories. It didn't last long.
But this does show that ABC wants a newscast, not an "evening newsmagazine" that has been talked about in some circles (CBS). Such a show wouldn't require updates, except for a headline segment.
> anchor slots. I am a little surpised Bob Woodruff got a
> co-anchor slot. I thought Vargas would anchor "World News
> Tonight" solo.
You have to wonder if there still isn't some sexism there - the only two women to anchor a weeknight newscast were part of teams. They're allowed on weekends or morning shows, but not for that prime showcase...
> I'm also not surprised that Charles Gibson is staying at
> "Good Morning America". My guess is that the reason Gibson
> did not get the "WNT" anchor desk may be this: ABC may
> believe that Katie Couric will soon leave NBC's "Today"
> show, and that by keeping the "GMA" co-host team of Gibson
> and Diane Sawyer intact, the show would have a real chance
> of becoming the nation's top-rated network morning news
> show----and possibly also become the nation's dominant
> network morning news show as well.
As far as the networks are concerned, top-rated equals dominant; they could carry two hours of reading the phone book and the network wouldn't care if it got good ratings.
> Although it would break a tradition of recent times for a
> network's evening-news anchor to not serve as that network's
> prime anchor for special news events and breaking news, it's
> not unprecedented. Walter Cronkite anchored special news
> events for CBS for almost a decade prior to becoming anchor
> of the "Evening News". Although Chet Huntley and David
> Brinkley anchored NBC's evening newscast for fourteen years
> and much of that network's special news event coverage
> during that time, it was Frank McGee who anchored NBC's
> space coverage during the 1960's (although Huntley and
> Brinkley did occassionally appear to do commentary or
> easays; sometimes, one of them would be sent to Cape
> Canaveral for the launch).
That was, according to Reuven Frank's book, because H&B didn't give a damn about space and just read off what was in the research books they were given. They were very happy to let McGee handle it - which he did very well - just showing up for big events.
> The idea of having a live feed for the West Coast is one
> that I think is long overdue; don't be surprised if come
> January, the CBS and NBC evening news programs also launch a
> live West Copast feed every night.
>
In the 70s, CBS tried doing inserts with Terry Drinkwater that were put in the Cronkite newscast to update stories or replace stories mostly of interest to the East/Midwest with more on West stories. It didn't last long.
But this does show that ABC wants a newscast, not an "evening newsmagazine" that has been talked about in some circles (CBS). Such a show wouldn't require updates, except for a headline segment.
M
Mediafrog
Guest
> That was, according to Reuven Frank's book, because H&B
> didn't give a damn about space and just read off what was in
> the research books they were given. They were very happy to
> let McGee handle it - which he did very well - just showing
> up for big events.
Just the opposite of Walter Cronkite, who came across as something of a space geek--probably why CBS space coverage kicked butt during the Apollo program.
> In the 70s, CBS tried doing inserts with Terry Drinkwater
> that were put in the Cronkite newscast to update stories or
> replace stories mostly of interest to the East/Midwest with
> more on West stories. It didn't last long.
It was still going well into the 80's. Terry Drinkwater's death from cancer was a big loss for CBS; he was a solid and likeable reporting presence.
> didn't give a damn about space and just read off what was in
> the research books they were given. They were very happy to
> let McGee handle it - which he did very well - just showing
> up for big events.
Just the opposite of Walter Cronkite, who came across as something of a space geek--probably why CBS space coverage kicked butt during the Apollo program.
> In the 70s, CBS tried doing inserts with Terry Drinkwater
> that were put in the Cronkite newscast to update stories or
> replace stories mostly of interest to the East/Midwest with
> more on West stories. It didn't last long.
It was still going well into the 80's. Terry Drinkwater's death from cancer was a big loss for CBS; he was a solid and likeable reporting presence.
M
Mediafrog
Guest
> It accomplished one thing in that Charles Gibson will never
> become a full time anchor of World News Tonight. They just
> used him that's all.
Gibson is still being paid a huge salary for his GMA duties, so I doubt he is crying in his beer.
Hard to feel sorry for anyone in that income range, regardless of their work situation.
> become a full time anchor of World News Tonight. They just
> used him that's all.
Gibson is still being paid a huge salary for his GMA duties, so I doubt he is crying in his beer.
Hard to feel sorry for anyone in that income range, regardless of their work situation.
Re: Smart Move On ABC's Part
> I say that because if CBS does decide to go after Katie
> Couric, ABC will already have its female anchor in place
> with Elizabeth Vargas.
>
> I’m really not surprised that Vargas did get the co-anchor
> position. She has done a good job since the death of Peter
> Jennings. The teaming up with Bob Woodruff was a surprise
> however. I thought ABC learned its lesson about duel anchors
> after the Reasoner/Walters and Reynolds/Robinson/Jennings
> eras.
>
> I have to differ with you on Reynolds/Robinson/Jennings.
They brought a lot of new viewers to ABC, often beating NBC.
In fact, by the end of the '70s, World News Tonight, Good
Morning America, and what would become Nightline but was then
The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage, established ABC as the
most aggressive of the Big Three news operations; and 20/20
was holding its own, although never beating 60 Minutes.
The original concept of World News Tonight at least had a
different look and feel from what CBS and NBC were doing.
And the extensive use of graphics and music were picked
up by CBS and NBC.
Don't forget that Roone Arledge experimented with what he
called the "whiparound" technique from January-July 1978,
mainly to get the attention off Reasoner and Walters. One
of them would introduce a story, then hand it off to Reynolds
(or Jennings or Sam Donaldson or whomever) in the field; they,
in turn, would hand off to another correspondent for a different
angle on the story; for instance, during a West Virginia coal-
miners' strike, Reasoner would go to Reynolds in West Virginia,
then Reynolds might go to Sam Donaldson in Washington for the
administration's perspective; then he might hand off to a third
correspondent, whose story might be the way the strike was
affecting a coal miner's family. That concept was refined
into the original World News Tonight, but with the attention
off the feuding anchors (Reasoner and Walters), viewers found
they liked what they saw and stayed put when it became WNT.
So I would hardly say Frank Reynolds, Peter Jennings, and
Max Robinson were a failure.
>
>
> I say that because if CBS does decide to go after Katie
> Couric, ABC will already have its female anchor in place
> with Elizabeth Vargas.
>
> I’m really not surprised that Vargas did get the co-anchor
> position. She has done a good job since the death of Peter
> Jennings. The teaming up with Bob Woodruff was a surprise
> however. I thought ABC learned its lesson about duel anchors
> after the Reasoner/Walters and Reynolds/Robinson/Jennings
> eras.
>
> I have to differ with you on Reynolds/Robinson/Jennings.
They brought a lot of new viewers to ABC, often beating NBC.
In fact, by the end of the '70s, World News Tonight, Good
Morning America, and what would become Nightline but was then
The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage, established ABC as the
most aggressive of the Big Three news operations; and 20/20
was holding its own, although never beating 60 Minutes.
The original concept of World News Tonight at least had a
different look and feel from what CBS and NBC were doing.
And the extensive use of graphics and music were picked
up by CBS and NBC.
Don't forget that Roone Arledge experimented with what he
called the "whiparound" technique from January-July 1978,
mainly to get the attention off Reasoner and Walters. One
of them would introduce a story, then hand it off to Reynolds
(or Jennings or Sam Donaldson or whomever) in the field; they,
in turn, would hand off to another correspondent for a different
angle on the story; for instance, during a West Virginia coal-
miners' strike, Reasoner would go to Reynolds in West Virginia,
then Reynolds might go to Sam Donaldson in Washington for the
administration's perspective; then he might hand off to a third
correspondent, whose story might be the way the strike was
affecting a coal miner's family. That concept was refined
into the original World News Tonight, but with the attention
off the feuding anchors (Reasoner and Walters), viewers found
they liked what they saw and stayed put when it became WNT.
So I would hardly say Frank Reynolds, Peter Jennings, and
Max Robinson were a failure.
>
>
>
> Gibson is still being paid a huge salary for his GMA duties,
> so I doubt he is crying in his beer.
>
> Hard to feel sorry for anyone in that income range,
> regardless of their work situation.
Sad to say that the people at ABC thinks so little of Charles Gibson to give him the full time job of anchorman of World News Tonight as much as he stepped in Peter Jennings' shoes and then the thanks he gets in return into promoting Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff who only filled in in that role over a dozen times combined. I wish that the reverse would have happen in that Vargas and Woodruff would have joined Good Morning America and Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer would have anchored World News Tonight. Charles Gibson deserves much better as does Diane Sawyer.
And yes apparently the dollar factor might have had something to with it as well. We'll see how long this will last.
> Gibson is still being paid a huge salary for his GMA duties,
> so I doubt he is crying in his beer.
>
> Hard to feel sorry for anyone in that income range,
> regardless of their work situation.
Sad to say that the people at ABC thinks so little of Charles Gibson to give him the full time job of anchorman of World News Tonight as much as he stepped in Peter Jennings' shoes and then the thanks he gets in return into promoting Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff who only filled in in that role over a dozen times combined. I wish that the reverse would have happen in that Vargas and Woodruff would have joined Good Morning America and Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer would have anchored World News Tonight. Charles Gibson deserves much better as does Diane Sawyer.
And yes apparently the dollar factor might have had something to with it as well. We'll see how long this will last.
J
Joseph_Gallant
Guest
There are probably three major reasons why ABC made the decision that it did:
(1) Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff are both in their early forties. At least one of them should be at the ABC News anchor desk (barring being fired for low ratings or lured away by a competitor) for at least twenty years.
By contrast, I believe Charles Gibson is around 60 years of age (give or take a year either way). Gibson probably would have been at the "World News Tonight" anchor desk for at least five years, but probably no more than ten years at the most (probably six or seven). ABC News might not want to have to go back five or six or seven years from now and again have to decide who will anchor "WNT".
(2) Should Katie Couric leave NBC's "Today Show", "Good Morning America" might not only become the number-one network morning show, but could draw more viewers than "Today" or the "CBS News Early Show" combined....but maybe only if Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer remained with "GMA".
(3) The network morning shows are highly profitable, and draw more desirable demographics than the evening news. In fact, were TV advertising of prescription drugs to be banned (there are no plans to do so), the network evening newscasts might end up "sustaining", such is the dominance of prescription-drug advertising on these programs. By contrast, the morning shows have a much larger percentage of viewers between 18 and 49 years of age.
Were Gibson to leave "GMA", it's ratings might go down. People, especially when it comes to news (including morning news shows), like to see the same anchor or host(s) year after year. It's a "security blanket", knowing that come what may in the world, one can find out about it from Charles and Diane (or Katie and Matt) in the morning and from Brian or Elizabeth and Bob at dinnertime.
There's no doubt about it: Charles Gibson would have been an outstanding anchor on "WNT". He has also, over the last few months, proven to be excellent at anchoring special events and breaking news.
ABC should give Gibson a "consolation prize": A pay raise to stay with "GMA", and the position of prime anchor for the network's coverage of live events and breaking news. The network should announce that Gibson will anchor their coverage of the next space shuttle flight, the 2006 mid-term election night, and the 2008 conventions and election-night coverage. He'd be a much better anchor for those events than either Vargas and/or Woodruff.
(1) Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff are both in their early forties. At least one of them should be at the ABC News anchor desk (barring being fired for low ratings or lured away by a competitor) for at least twenty years.
By contrast, I believe Charles Gibson is around 60 years of age (give or take a year either way). Gibson probably would have been at the "World News Tonight" anchor desk for at least five years, but probably no more than ten years at the most (probably six or seven). ABC News might not want to have to go back five or six or seven years from now and again have to decide who will anchor "WNT".
(2) Should Katie Couric leave NBC's "Today Show", "Good Morning America" might not only become the number-one network morning show, but could draw more viewers than "Today" or the "CBS News Early Show" combined....but maybe only if Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer remained with "GMA".
(3) The network morning shows are highly profitable, and draw more desirable demographics than the evening news. In fact, were TV advertising of prescription drugs to be banned (there are no plans to do so), the network evening newscasts might end up "sustaining", such is the dominance of prescription-drug advertising on these programs. By contrast, the morning shows have a much larger percentage of viewers between 18 and 49 years of age.
Were Gibson to leave "GMA", it's ratings might go down. People, especially when it comes to news (including morning news shows), like to see the same anchor or host(s) year after year. It's a "security blanket", knowing that come what may in the world, one can find out about it from Charles and Diane (or Katie and Matt) in the morning and from Brian or Elizabeth and Bob at dinnertime.
There's no doubt about it: Charles Gibson would have been an outstanding anchor on "WNT". He has also, over the last few months, proven to be excellent at anchoring special events and breaking news.
ABC should give Gibson a "consolation prize": A pay raise to stay with "GMA", and the position of prime anchor for the network's coverage of live events and breaking news. The network should announce that Gibson will anchor their coverage of the next space shuttle flight, the 2006 mid-term election night, and the 2008 conventions and election-night coverage. He'd be a much better anchor for those events than either Vargas and/or Woodruff.
> >
> > Gibson is still being paid a huge salary for his GMA
> duties,
> > so I doubt he is crying in his beer.
> >
> > Hard to feel sorry for anyone in that income range,
> > regardless of their work situation.
>
> Sad to say that the people at ABC thinks so little of
> Charles Gibson to give him the full time job of anchorman of
> World News Tonight as much as he stepped in Peter Jennings'
> shoes and then the thanks he gets in return into promoting
> Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff who only filled in in that
> role over a dozen times combined. I wish that the reverse
> would have happen in that Vargas and Woodruff would have
> joined Good Morning America and Charles Gibson and Diane
> Sawyer would have anchored World News Tonight. Charles
> Gibson deserves much better as does Diane Sawyer.
I don't think Gibson is upset about the new situation. He is working on a successful morning show and is making the big bucks. ABC didn't "use" Gibson for WNT. He was a fill-in. No biggy. Plus, it wouldn't make since to switch Gibson and Sawyer to WNT. The morning show is doing well in ratings (close to beating NBC's "Today").
>
> > Gibson is still being paid a huge salary for his GMA
> duties,
> > so I doubt he is crying in his beer.
> >
> > Hard to feel sorry for anyone in that income range,
> > regardless of their work situation.
>
> Sad to say that the people at ABC thinks so little of
> Charles Gibson to give him the full time job of anchorman of
> World News Tonight as much as he stepped in Peter Jennings'
> shoes and then the thanks he gets in return into promoting
> Elizabeth Vargas and Bob Woodruff who only filled in in that
> role over a dozen times combined. I wish that the reverse
> would have happen in that Vargas and Woodruff would have
> joined Good Morning America and Charles Gibson and Diane
> Sawyer would have anchored World News Tonight. Charles
> Gibson deserves much better as does Diane Sawyer.
I don't think Gibson is upset about the new situation. He is working on a successful morning show and is making the big bucks. ABC didn't "use" Gibson for WNT. He was a fill-in. No biggy. Plus, it wouldn't make since to switch Gibson and Sawyer to WNT. The morning show is doing well in ratings (close to beating NBC's "Today").
>
O
oldiesfan
Guest
Orphan Time Zone...Again
> Also WNT will air live in 3 time zones,
> including in the west.
After seeing and reading this part of the
story spun several ways by various media,
I went to the source--abcnews.com--where
the story stated live feeds would be at
6:30/8:30/9:30 ET, enabling live 'casts
on the left coast at 5:30 and 6:30 PT.
(Will assume they'll replay the 5:30 PT
live feed at 6:00.)
Doesn't do much for the ever-forgotten
Mountain time zone though, unless you
air the show at 6:30 MT...does anyone?
I believe most MT affils of all three nets
air at 5:30, a few of the smaller markets
(take the 7:00 ET refeed) at 5:00 and a
couple (PHX/CBS and SLC/ABC come to mind)
run the net show at 6:00.
Closed circuit for KNXV-TV Phoenix:
in the summer remember to take the new live
feed at 5:30, not the one you recorded at
3:30 or 4:00!
> Also WNT will air live in 3 time zones,
> including in the west.
After seeing and reading this part of the
story spun several ways by various media,
I went to the source--abcnews.com--where
the story stated live feeds would be at
6:30/8:30/9:30 ET, enabling live 'casts
on the left coast at 5:30 and 6:30 PT.
(Will assume they'll replay the 5:30 PT
live feed at 6:00.)
Doesn't do much for the ever-forgotten
Mountain time zone though, unless you
air the show at 6:30 MT...does anyone?
I believe most MT affils of all three nets
air at 5:30, a few of the smaller markets
(take the 7:00 ET refeed) at 5:00 and a
couple (PHX/CBS and SLC/ABC come to mind)
run the net show at 6:00.
Closed circuit for KNXV-TV Phoenix:
in the summer remember to take the new live
feed at 5:30, not the one you recorded at
3:30 or 4:00!
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Orphan Time Zone...Again
> Doesn't do much for the ever-forgotten
> Mountain time zone though, unless you
> air the show at 6:30 MT...does anyone?
I suppose it does no good to remind you that there are too few network affiliates in the Mountain Time Zone to warrant any kind of special feed.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Doesn't do much for the ever-forgotten
> Mountain time zone though, unless you
> air the show at 6:30 MT...does anyone?
I suppose it does no good to remind you that there are too few network affiliates in the Mountain Time Zone to warrant any kind of special feed.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
O
oldiesfan
Guest
Re: Orphan Time Zone...Again
> I suppose it does no good to remind you
> that there are too few network affiliates
> in the Mountain Time Zone to warrant any
> kind of special feed.
Shhh...don't tell NBC, or they'll cancel
their whole Mountain time zone feed! ;-)
> I suppose it does no good to remind you
> that there are too few network affiliates
> in the Mountain Time Zone to warrant any
> kind of special feed.
Shhh...don't tell NBC, or they'll cancel
their whole Mountain time zone feed! ;-)
Re: Orphan Time Zone...Again
Having lived in the "Orphan" Time Zone previously, I feel your pain. Seems to me ABC should be able to better accomodate its Western affiliates, and in turn their viewers.
Rationale: In both western time zones WNT is typically scheduled for 6 PM local but with the refeeds are on the half-hour, few stations west of the Central zone could carry it live. If ABC would move each one half hour earlier, problem solved. Everybody would get a live updated show - and that's the way it really should be.
Here in Seattle, however, KOMO currently has two full hours of local news from 4 to 6 PM, and it's doing quite well. With the current ABC plan KOMO could take WNT live at 5:30 and go mano-a-mano with KIRO, which has been running CBS's newscast at 5:30 pm for some months now. The big question is: how willing are they?
Having lived in the "Orphan" Time Zone previously, I feel your pain. Seems to me ABC should be able to better accomodate its Western affiliates, and in turn their viewers.
Rationale: In both western time zones WNT is typically scheduled for 6 PM local but with the refeeds are on the half-hour, few stations west of the Central zone could carry it live. If ABC would move each one half hour earlier, problem solved. Everybody would get a live updated show - and that's the way it really should be.
Here in Seattle, however, KOMO currently has two full hours of local news from 4 to 6 PM, and it's doing quite well. With the current ABC plan KOMO could take WNT live at 5:30 and go mano-a-mano with KIRO, which has been running CBS's newscast at 5:30 pm for some months now. The big question is: how willing are they?
Re: Orphan Time Zone...Again
> > I suppose it does no good to remind you
> > that there are too few network affiliates
> > in the Mountain Time Zone to warrant any
> > kind of special feed.
>
> Shhh...don't tell NBC, or they'll cancel
> their whole Mountain time zone feed! ;-)
>
Yeah, it's called the Eastern feed - delayed by one hour. It's very special!
As a former Salt Laker, I know your frustration. But, the time zone is just simply outnumbered. Hey, Pacific time is lucky to have their own feed at this point!!
> > I suppose it does no good to remind you
> > that there are too few network affiliates
> > in the Mountain Time Zone to warrant any
> > kind of special feed.
>
> Shhh...don't tell NBC, or they'll cancel
> their whole Mountain time zone feed! ;-)
>
Yeah, it's called the Eastern feed - delayed by one hour. It's very special!
As a former Salt Laker, I know your frustration. But, the time zone is just simply outnumbered. Hey, Pacific time is lucky to have their own feed at this point!!
Re: Orphan Time Zone...Again
The population numbers in the MTZ are all the reason one needs to understand why they don't get their own feed.
What made me do a double-take was that I first heard about it on radio station KTAR in Phoenix (they air ABC News) and I swear I heard them say on the network segment that World News Tonight would be live in all 3 time zones. All 3 ?!?!?!? Just among the states alone, we have 6 time zones, not 3.
The population numbers in the MTZ are all the reason one needs to understand why they don't get their own feed.
What made me do a double-take was that I first heard about it on radio station KTAR in Phoenix (they air ABC News) and I swear I heard them say on the network segment that World News Tonight would be live in all 3 time zones. All 3 ?!?!?!? Just among the states alone, we have 6 time zones, not 3.
- Status