Amanpour to ABC's "This Week"

[Nate Wesley]

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.

There's plenty of blather on those fronts every weekday on the cable news channels. So why not break out of that mold for a show that includes more international news? Instead of eliminating international reporting entirely, concentrate it into compelling stories people will want to see with updates and other features appearing online.

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

These are not the people necessarily buying Cadillacs or buying stock in Cargill or ADM. Their loss.

 

[Nate Wesley]

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.

+1

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".

Not surprised a certain someone brought her politics up. He also thought Glenn Beck was getting 'unfairly' railroaded by the boycott of his advertisers, so carefully consider who he considers 'objective'.

 

[BRNout]

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?...

Most are expressed subtly, but I found a pretty good example of this. Generally soft-soaping arab/muslim atrocities while being overly critical of Israel, the US and the West (in that order). I have never once heard her utter a criticism questioning the motives or beliefs of radical Islam; but she is constantly one-sided (negatively) on Israel. That implies a personal bias. My "claim" is hardly a wild accusation when you consider how many others feel the same way as I do about her views. Let's just say I'd keel over dead if I ever saw her somewhere waving an American flag and protesting with the Tea Party guys! ;D : ;D

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.

My question was rhetorical and my apologies if that wasn't clear. I certainly wasn't trying to call anyone out (and that goes for you too Lkeller) and wasn't expecting to see answers to the question I posed. What I was trying to do was to foster some introspection about where each of our political leanings lie and how that impacts our view of ABC's move. Let's just say that nothing I've read in this thread has dissuaded me from the opinion that this woman appeals to those who are left of center far more than those who are to the right. And your point is taken in that most people tend to think of themselves as "centrist" even when they are not. I have a good friend who is truly a hard leftist. Truly. But he'll swear up and down that he is a moderate. It's human nature, I suppose, to think of where you are as being the central reference point for all things.

To bring this thread out of the emotional and back into the analytical, I'll just opine that this was a bad move because - if for no other reason - ABC has chosen someone who appeals to the same political portion of the population as NBC and CBS now attract. Wouldn't it have been better if they had picked someone who didn't alienate the left OR the right? Like a Jake Tapper? I wholeheartedly think so.

 

[imhomerjay]

Wouldn't it have been better if they had picked someone who didn't alienate the left OR the right? Like a Jake Tapper? I wholeheartedly think so.

Or who alienates both the left and right depending on the day and who he's interviewing. (Just having some fun--I would have no problem with him doing the show, but likewise have no problem with the direction they went at this point--not going to pre-judge how the show will shake out until it actually, you know, airs. ;D)

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

To bring this thread out of the emotional and back into the analytical, I'll just opine that this was a bad move because - if for no other reason - ABC has chosen someone who appeals to the same political portion of the population as NBC and CBS now attract. Wouldn't it have been better if they had picked someone who didn't alienate the left OR the right? Like a Jake Tapper? I wholeheartedly think so.

I am sitting here trying to picture you and me and a few other people being on the team responsible for programming Sunday morning on ABC.... or ANY OTHER network for that matter.

We would do well to review our criteria for Sunday morning programming. Who is availabe to be an audience member? The "party animals" of the world have been up late on Saturday night.... partying! They probably won't be up to watch no matter WHO we put on the air. The conservative religious right have already washed a polished themselves and hustled off to a worship event somewhere and attended a Sunday School class. We know where the golfers are. Where I live I can tell you from the purrs and roars of Evenrudes where the fishermen are. I can see that the horse trailer that eased into the driveway next door sometime Saturday afternoon is gone by Sunday morning so I know where she is.

Here is the basic question: WHO is available to be attracted to Sunday morning TV watching? Are my examples mere fly-specks on the wall and the Sunday morning prospects for audience is demographically equal to any other time segment of the week?

Let me offer a hypothetical, somewhat off-the-wall scenario. The producers and managers of Sunday morning TV interviews assume NO ONE is available to watch. These "broadcasts" have been built up as a social event that is attractive to the inside-the-beltway Washington Movers and Shakers. It is an event designed to snare the high-value targets into a room where clips can be edited to fit into newscasts at other time. The media-watchers will record the events for later play-back and analysis.

The selection of the host is not geared to attracting the largest audience, so much as it is the selection of the host that will attract the most prestigious guests. If you are a political insider and you get regular invitations to be on-the-air, you want to strut your stuff and show how well versed you are. You want to demonstrate that you have the skills to do battle with the strongest of interviewers. You want to be interviewed by a host intelligent enough to bring out your own intelligence.

If my scenario has any validity, then I obviously want to be interviewed by Amanpour.

 

[justpassingthough]

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?...

Most are expressed subtly, but I found a pretty good example of this. Generally soft-soaping arab/muslim atrocities while being overly critical of Israel, the US and the West (in that order). I have never once heard her utter a criticism questioning the motives or beliefs of radical Islam; but she is constantly one-sided (negatively) on Israel. That implies a personal bias. My "claim" is hardly a wild accusation when you consider how many others feel the same way as I do about her views. Let's just say I'd keel over dead if I ever saw her somewhere waving an American flag and protesting with the Tea Party guys! ;D : ;D

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.

My question was rhetorical and my apologies if that wasn't clear. I certainly wasn't trying to call anyone out (and that goes for you too Lkeller) and wasn't expecting to see answers to the question I posed. What I was trying to do was to foster some introspection about where each of our political leanings lie and how that impacts our view of ABC's move. Let's just say that nothing I've read in this thread has dissuaded me from the opinion that this woman appeals to those who are left of center far more than those who are to the right. And your point is taken in that most people tend to think of themselves as "centrist" even when they are not. I have a good friend who is truly a hard leftist. Truly. But he'll swear up and down that he is a moderate. It's human nature, I suppose, to think of where you are as being the central reference point for all things.

To bring this thread out of the emotional and back into the analytical, I'll just opine that this was a bad move because - if for no other reason - ABC has chosen someone who appeals to the same political portion of the population as NBC and CBS now attract. Wouldn't it have been better if they had picked someone who didn't alienate the left OR the right? Like a Jake Tapper? I wholeheartedly think so.

Sadly, I think the days of not offending the right or left is over. When someone is viewed as middle of the road, moderate or not partisan, they are also usually discarded as bland or viewed as non-commital. Objectivity is no longer valued (see: Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck). Its really only disheartening when those who are strongly partisan refuse to admit that they operate with bias.

Ryan Seacrest probably won't offend those on the right or the left, but he also doesn't know which questions to ask or what topics to probe. So he wouldn't offend anyone, but he likely wouldn't inform anyone either. My point being to be careful what you wish for...

And for the record, I'm fiscally moderate and socially liberal (although I always tend to vote Democrat because I'd rather vote for social liberty than a few extra dollars in my paycheck since they are all crooks and can't run anything efficiently or wisely)

 

[BRNout]

I am sitting here trying to picture you and me and a few other people being on the team responsible for programming Sunday morning on ABC.... or ANY OTHER network for that matter.

We would do well to review our criteria for Sunday morning programming. Who is availabe to be an audience member? The "party animals" of the world have been up late on Saturday night.... partying! They probably won't be up to watch no matter WHO we put on the air. The conservative religious right have already washed a polished themselves and hustled off to a worship event somewhere and attended a Sunday School class. We know where the golfers are. Where I live I can tell you from the purrs and roars of Evenrudes where the fishermen are. I can see that the horse trailer that eased into the driveway next door sometime Saturday afternoon is gone by Sunday morning so I know where she is.

Here is the basic question: WHO is available to be attracted to Sunday morning TV watching? Are my examples mere fly-specks on the wall and the Sunday morning prospects for audience is demographically equal to any other time segment of the week?

Let me offer a hypothetical, somewhat off-the-wall scenario. The producers and managers of Sunday morning TV interviews assume NO ONE is available to watch. These "broadcasts" have been built up as a social event that is attractive to the inside-the-beltway Washington Movers and Shakers. It is an event designed to snare the high-value targets into a room where clips can be edited to fit into newscasts at other time. The media-watchers will record the events for later play-back and analysis.

The selection of the host is not geared to attracting the largest audience, so much as it is the selection of the host that will attract the most prestigious guests. If you are a political insider and you get regular invitations to be on-the-air, you want to strut your stuff and show how well versed you are. You want to demonstrate that you have the skills to do battle with the strongest of interviewers. You want to be interviewed by a host intelligent enough to bring out your own intelligence.

If my scenario has any validity, then I obviously want to be interviewed by Amanpour.

Interesting perspective on this. Very interesting and thought provoking post.

I think you may be dismissing the 'church' crowd a little too easily, as many do catch the Sunday shows. And, the viewership for those shows does skew rather old. However your points about attracting "inside the Beltway" guests and being of that culture is well taken.

In that regard, I'm still not convinced that Amanpour is the best choice as far as that is concerned. I'll give her this: clearly she's knowledgeable about the issues. But I still maintain that ABC would have been better off (ratings wise) by going in a different direction.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think you may be dismissing the 'church' crowd a little too easily, as many do catch the Sunday shows. And, the viewership for those shows does skew rather old.

A number of people set up their VCR or their DVR to capture the Sunday Morning shows for viewing at another time if they have a schedule conflict.

My favorite image of an overlooked Sunday morning target audience are the people, who after being rushed all week long, set aside Sunday morning to deeply browse the New York Times which can eat a big chunk of the day. Others will devour their local metropolitan paper. Consume a pot of coffee.

For being a part of a Sunday audience, church people are a very diverse people. Those who "skew a little older" to use your term, may not be concerned with getting children dressed and ready, and may not be attending both an educational hour and a worship hour. They may have a 15 minute travel their, be there for a hour or slightly less, and 15 minutes travel back. Yes, they can make up a substantial part of the Sunday morning audience.

The ones I picture who DO NOT make up part of the Sunday morning TV audience are those who may commute 30 minutes to an hour each way, they are there for at least 2-1/2 hours, and if they are into Conservative Christian Theology may consider the Sunday morning shows too liberal for their consumption anyway.