Amanpour to ABC's "This Week"

[mnbu12]

After the recent changes to the CNN Sunday line up, today it was announced longtime CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour will depart the network and head over to Sunday mornings to replace the recently departed George Stephanopoulos at "This Week." She'll reportedly begin in August

First reported by TVnewser http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser..._leaves_cnn_to_host_abcs_this_week_155164.asp


Your thoughts? Is she too international for a Sunday morning affairs show? Especially in August as midterm elections are in full swing?

I admire her as a newswoman but always identified her with foreign affairs-- which she did well (for nearly 30 years)

Will this boost "This Week" in the Sunday morning ratings?

 

[MediaBoy4Radio]

Out of left field, ABC comes up with this brilliant move.

She is experienced, intelligent and will bring not only credibility but a new dimension to "This Week" .

The Sunday morning boys better watch out.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Your thoughts? Is she too international for a Sunday morning affairs show? Especially in August as midterm elections are in full swing?

What does it mean to be "too international"?

How will I recognize it if it turns out to be true?

 

[Markxxx]

When I think of her the first word that comes to mind is "class."

She is an excellent reporter, I will start watching again because of her. I hope she works out.

 

[LKellerIII]

A bold, but smart move by ABC, in my opinion. If you've ever watched any of Amanpour's specials for CNN, you know that she's an exceptional reporter. Due to the popularity of Fox News as the vocal opposition, CNN is currently suffering. There are a few exceptional CNN on-air talents that seriously need new forums. Christiane Amanpour is one.

 

[mnbu12]

Rodeo Cowboy: When I say too international, I mean that when I think Christiane Amanpour I think of foreign reporting and world perspectives. However, when I think of Sunday morning affairs shows-- I think of domestic policy and American perspectives.

I feel like a lot of Americans might not care so much about what's happening elsewhere (not all). I feel like they'd be more apt to tune into a broadcast that is about what directly concerns them, America-- I hope Amanpour delivers that because she is excellent.

I'm sure she will want to combine world perspectives and how it effects America and vice versa.
I'm just not sure it will be well received. Then again, it will stand out from the other programs.

Understand what I mean?

Very bold, very smart move. Kudos ABC.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I feel like a lot of Americans might not care so much about what's happening elsewhere (not all). I feel like they'd be more apt to tune into a broadcast that is about what directly concerns them, America-- I hope Amanpour delivers that because she is excellent.

I'm sure she will want to combine world perspectives and how it effects America and vice versa.
I'm just not sure it will be well received.

Good answer. I guessed that was your line of thinking, but I wanted to confirm it.

Getting people to sit still long enough to hear information that reaches beyond what they think is important to them is hard to do. I hope she will be able to do that from time to time when it is the right thing to do.

A group in our community is doing a six week series of presentations and discussions on topics: China. World Financial Crisis., Russia and its Neighbors. The Persian Gulf. Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution. Global Crime. You are right. A steady diet of those topics on Sunday morning could scare people away.

I went to the first presentation last night: China. In 60 minutes I learned more about China than I have learned in 60 YEARS. Your first response might be: See, if Amanpour does that, listeners will flee. I can assure you NO ONE fled the room last night. Why does China loan money to us? Can we expect them to continue? What was the key factor that allowed the Communists to gain support of the masses circa 1949? Why does China NOT help us snuff out efforts at atomic energy in Iran but has a hissy-fit over atomic energy in North Korea? Can we expect war between China and Russia? Why not?

It will be interesting to see in Amanpour can bring topics like that to her Sunday morning audience, or will she focus primarily on Washington events and struggles and leave international topics to other journalists.

 

[DToTheJ]

mnbu12: I understood what your angle was completely. I correlate Amanpour with her international journalism on CNN, and am curious as to how her approach will be on a forum such as ABC's "This Week." I am also in agreement with a previous poster that she is worthy of a more mainstream platform.

Interestingly, this comes right on the heels of her new "Amanpour" show, which just got off the ground on Sunday afternoons months ago on CNN. I'd be curious if that show was created in an effort to prevent her from jumping to another network like ABC. Think about it... think about the timing... I wonder how that show has performed in the ratings - and if it will be unceremoniously cancelled starting this week, too...

Christiane Amanpour. To me, she comes across with about as much enthusiasm as a Teddy Ruxpin doll. But she's good at what she does, and I think she'll do great at ABC.

 

[DToTheJ]

In a note from ABC News President David Westin, he admits:

More than once over the years we’ve talked with Christiane about her joining us in one position or another. Until now, it wasn’t the right time or the right fit. We are fortunate that this time it worked for Christiane and for us.

This adds to my theory in the above post that CNN had created a show for her, so as not to lose her to another network.

Meanwhile, Westin adds:

She will also appear on all other ABC News programs and platforms to provide international analysis of the important issues of the day. And, she will be anchoring primetime documentaries on international subjects.

So in those two lines alone, the word "international" is used in describing two of the tasks she will handle at ABC. Makes me wonder how much of an "international" flavor she will bring to "This Week," if at all.

 

[BRNout]

A great move? Really? ;D

I could do a Seth Myers bit on all of the above comments about Christiane Amanpour but will save all of us the agony of that. The fact is (and it's a fact) that she is someone who has expressed anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and politically hard leftist opinions via her various comments and reports over the years. As such, there's a percentage of the public (the ones in the know) who are aware of this and she begins her tenure at ABC as a virtual lightning rod.

This is not at all what they needed. For a program like this, you need someone who can be very objective and respectful, yet critical, of both sides. George Stephanopolous was actually very good in this role, despite the fact that we all know his political proclivities. Amanpour has, through her reporting, already demonstrated that she lacks this talent. Jake Tapper would have been a much better pick for a show like This Week, in my opinion.

 

[justpassingthough]

Amanpour's international perspective is probably needed more on Sunday morning now, than ever before. We are in an increasingly globalizing world, and even domestic matters are starting to either resonate on a global stage, or are being increasingly influenced by other countries more than any other time in American history. If she can lend some of this perspective to reporting on affairs, both domestic and international, then it should lend a leg up to "This Week" over the other Sunday morning programs.

I think its a smart move on the part of ABC.

I don't even know how to address the above on her political stance. On most of the domestic issues facing America in 2010 (health care, financial regulation, etc), the developed world is largely to the left of us- so pretty much any reporter bringing international experience will reflect this "bias".

 

[LKellerIII]

A great move? Really? ;D

This is not at all what they needed. For a program like this, you need someone who can be very objective and respectful, yet critical, of both sides. George Stephanopolous was actually very good in this role, despite the fact that we all know his political proclivities. Amanpour has, through her reporting, already demonstrated that she lacks this talent. Jake Tapper would have been a much better pick for a show like This Week, in my opinion.

I'll repeat what I said on another thread about the Sunday morning shows - The political view of the host does not matter, as long as s/he is willing to ask the tough questions, and not let any of the people they interview get away with BS.

My example - a couple Sundays ago, both This Week and Meet the Press had on HSS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius to talk about health care. I watched both interviews. Matthew Dowd was filling in as host on This Week, and he was very easy on her. David Gregory asked her a lot of tough penetrating questions and didn't let her get away with any evasive answers.

Clearly, Gregory did the better job. I have no idea what his personal political views are, but it's a good bet they're to the left of Dowd, who's a Republican political consultant and former Bush operative.

 

[johnnyu]

Well, I sure won't be watching.

 

[FreddyE1977]

as CNN's viewership has dipped below that of Cartoon Network, this is no doubt a wise
career move for her

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Well, I sure won't be watching.

Good! That means here will be a chair left in front of the TV for me.

 

[BRNout]

I'll repeat what I said on another thread about the Sunday morning shows - The political view of the host does not matter, as long as s/he is willing to ask the tough questions, and not let any of the people they interview get away with BS.

My example - a couple Sundays ago, both This Week and Meet the Press had on HSS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius to talk about health care.  I watched both interviews.  Matthew Dowd was filling in as host on This Week, and he was very easy on her.  David Gregory asked her a lot of tough penetrating questions and didn't let her get away with any evasive answers. 

Clearly, Gregory did the better job.  I have no idea what his personal political views are, but it's a good bet they're to the left of Dowd, who's a Republican political consultant and former Bush operative.

Amanpour's work does not lead one to believe that her rather radical political proclivities (quite a bit left of most democrats) will not taint the way in which she manages This Week.  It's the human factor.  She has been anti-Israeli, been outspoken in her hatred of our previous president, and has embraced some pretty radical elements around the world. 

As it is, the overall leftward lean of most reporters on the mainstream media outlets has become more and more obvious over the years.  Not just how they frame and cover stories, but also what they consider to be a "story".  Two examples immediately come to mind: John Edwards' pecadillos (during the campaign) and Climategate.  In each case, the main media was dragged kicking and screaming into the story and were woefully late. 

Let me just pose this [rhetorical] question to you, GRC, and the others of you who laud this move (and you need not answer me here):  What political party do you tend to align yourself with?  And don't just answer 'independent' because that's a crock in the voting booth.  Odds are that those of you who supported Obama and other democrats would tend to see this move more favorably; those of you who supported republicans are far more apt to see this as a bad move because you know what you're getting. 

Put differently: if you hate Fox News, you'll probably like Amanpour.  As of now, all of the Sunday morning news shows skew left except for Fox Sunday.  Expect Fox to rake in the ratings and the others to split the remainder.

With regard to the comment about an international perspective, I wholeheartedly agree that we in the USA are sorely lacking that option.  However, this woman is NOT the answer to that need.  Frankly, I'd even prefer it if they hired Richard Quest for the job, despite the knowledge that he has some strange hobbies. 

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Let me just pose this [rhetorical] question to you, GRC, and the others of you who laud this move (and you need not answer me here): What political party do you tend to align yourself with? And don't just answer 'independent' because that's a crock in the voting booth. Odds are that those of you who supported Obama and other democrats would tend to see this move more favorably; those of you who supported republicans are far more apt to see this as a bad move because you know what you're getting.

If I fully answer HERE all of what you ask about in the quote, we then take this conversation to an area where the Managing Board Editor will throw a flag like they do in a football game and we will find our conversation moved to "Take It Outside". I have a personal value system that says: "When they say 'Play Nice' and you are the cause of being hustled off to T-I-O, you haven't played nice.

We will probably need to start a new thread in Off The Air or somewhere to cover part of what you have asked about, and we may choose to use the Personal Message system and take part of it off-line. I can pretty much be an Open Book.

So. Let's see if we can carry on a bit of conversation that fits within the rules and guidelines of Radio-Info.

It is almost universal that people who discuss politics, religion, morality feel that THEIR position is "centrist", middle-ground and the most ethical and sensible of all possible positions. And we all feel that anyone who has a different position on any of these topics is some kind of radical. A "wing-nut" as they say in some circles. Very few people today engaging in discussion are willing to say: "I am way out there on the edge, and I know it. But I will fight to the death because the edge is the right place to be." You will find that I am a person who regularly gets out the tape measure to see how far to the right is that edge of thinking, and how far to the left is that edge of thinking, so where do I need to be if I choose to shoot right down the middle. That is a foreign thought to most people who engage in Internet discussion groups.

I have been the moderator of business meetings for troubled church congregations where my duty was to find and enforce fairness between squabbling sides based on opposing extremes. They don't like it if I say this way in church but: "I am pretty damn good at it."

During my broadcasting years it was an era where radio stations seldom took sides and tried to serve as a way to bring information to the public that would lead to harmony and peaceful solution within the community at large. You call the claim of being an Independent voter a "crock" in the voting booth but I have voted split tickets all my life. I am old enough that I can remember the day Franklin Roosevelt died. This year, 2010, is the first time in my life I have ever written a check to support a political candidate, and this is the first time in my life I have written a check to pay membership dues in a political party. And I know that again this Fall in our state elections I am going to volte a split ticket.

I look forward to watching a seasoned and proven journalist step into the "fighting ring" every Sunday morning and see if she can draw out of her guests something that sounds like a true representation of what they are doing as they represent us in the halls of government. I am so tired of public officials who give us platitudes and soundbites that ring hollow. I don't care whether Amanpour has an agenda or not. If when the broadcast is over I have some idea of what the actual agenda of the guest being interviewed is, then we have success.

What party gets my support? I'm somewhere between a fiscal moderate and a fiscal conservative. I am somewhere between being a social moderate to social liberal. What are my choices under those criteria?

 

[Ultimajock]

The fact is (and it's a fact) that she is someone who has expressed anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and politically hard leftist opinions via her various comments and reports over the years.

...I suppose you have examples to back up this claim?...

 

[LKellerIII]

My answer to BRNout's question: My political views are quite varied depending on the subject, but I'd have to admit that overall, they skew to the left side of moderate. I don't "hate" Fox News, but I DO think it's ridiculous. Any laughable claim that they are "fair and balanced" has totally gone out the window. They clearly have a right wing agenda - not just during the hours of commentary (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc) as Roger Ailes claimed, but all the time. There are a few exceptions - Sheppard Smith doesn't seem all that conservative, and Geraldo Rivera certainly isn't, but he's a minor player there.

Having said that - in my opinion, conservatives have a valid point that most journalists tend to be liberal, and they deserve their own forum. I think that's a valid point - Fox News fills a need. But that doesn't mean I have to watch, and can't criticize it.

Back to Amanpour: is she's going to reveal a left-wing agenda and take sides while interviewing politicians and news makers, she will fail. It's not the right forum for that.

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

Jake Tapper would have been a much better pick for a show like This Week, in my opinion.

Another good choice would have been Bob Woodruff.