• 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

Bob Schieffer?

A

AliceTheCook

Guest
When Schieffer stepped in as Rather's replacement a few months back, the word out was that CBS was lining up some nouveau talent to spice up the news, do it as a team, and try to bring in younger viewers, and that Bob's tenure there would only be temporary. Any update on that? To me, Bob reeks of trustworthiness and it'd be a big loss to take him off there. He's more Cronkite-ish than Dan Rather ever was. Bob should have gotten the job after Walter stepped down in 1981.

OK, I'm not trying to make this into a Dallas vs Houston fight---Schieffer from North Texas, and Rather from Houston; just looking for info and objectivity. Who do YOU like or trust from the new evening news anchors? Should Fox jump in with an evening newscast of their own?
 
> When Schieffer stepped in as Rather's replacement a few
> months back, the word out was that CBS was lining up some
> nouveau talent to spice up the news, do it as a team, and
> try to bring in younger viewers, and that Bob's tenure there
> would only be temporary. Any update on that? To me, Bob
> reeks of trustworthiness and it'd be a big loss to take him
> off there. He's more Cronkite-ish than Dan Rather ever was.
> Bob should have gotten the job after Walter stepped down in
> 1981.
>
> OK, I'm not trying to make this into a Dallas vs Houston
> fight---Schieffer from North Texas, and Rather from Houston;
> just looking for info and objectivity. Who do YOU like or
> trust from the new evening news anchors? Should Fox jump in
> with an evening newscast of their own?


Ever hear the saying, "You know you're getting older when all the cops look like kids"? Same with news anchors. Compared to Schieffer's elder statesman aura, all the replacement types look like young upstarts trying to steal the emperor's clothes. But as the Cronkite/Schieffer audience loyalists fade away, there's the network dilemma of putting in seasoned-looking-and-sounding anchors who at once have credibilty yet appeal to the younger demographics.

My vote is to stay with Schieffer for 2-3 more years and keep fishing around. He's acceptable to the older and younger fringe audience segments and saves, for now, CBS having to sell viewers on a completely new anchor.

Fox should stick with Greta et al in later evening and avoid wasting its money going head to head with the three major networks on a "news" program.
 
> > When Schieffer stepped in as Rather's replacement a few
> > months back, the word out was that CBS was lining up some
> > nouveau talent to spice up the news, do it as a team, and
> > try to bring in younger viewers, and that Bob's tenure
> there
> > would only be temporary. Any update on that? To me, Bob
> > reeks of trustworthiness and it'd be a big loss to take
> him
> > off there. He's more Cronkite-ish than Dan Rather ever
> was.
> > Bob should have gotten the job after Walter stepped down
> in
> > 1981.
> >
> > OK, I'm not trying to make this into a Dallas vs Houston
> > fight---Schieffer from North Texas, and Rather from
> Houston;
> > just looking for info and objectivity. Who do YOU like or
>
> > trust from the new evening news anchors? Should Fox jump
> in
> > with an evening newscast of their own?
>
>
> Ever hear the saying, "You know you're getting older when
> all the cops look like kids"? Same with news anchors.
> Compared to Schieffer's elder statesman aura, all the
> replacement types look like young upstarts trying to steal
> the emperor's clothes. But as the Cronkite/Schieffer
> audience loyalists fade away, there's the network dilemma of
> putting in seasoned-looking-and-sounding anchors who at once
> have credibilty yet appeal to the younger demographics.
>
> My vote is to stay with Schieffer for 2-3 more years and
> keep fishing around. He's acceptable to the older and
> younger fringe audience segments and saves, for now, CBS
> having to sell viewers on a completely new anchor.
>
> Fox should stick with Greta et al in later evening and avoid
> wasting its money going head to head with the three major
> networks on a "news" program.
>
Two things:

1. CBS should have replaced Walter Cronkite with Charles Kuralt. He actually anchored during the transition period (several months) between Walter and Dan. Believe it or not, the ratings actually went UP during that interim period!

2. I believe that CBS is waiting for Katie Couric's contract to finish up at NBC next year. Then, Bob will be replaced by Katie and possibly a male co-anchor (no doubt Black or Hispanic). The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel...
 
> When Schieffer stepped in as Rather's replacement a few
> months back, the word out was that CBS was lining up some
> nouveau talent to spice up the news, do it as a team, and
> try to bring in younger viewers, and that Bob's tenure there
> would only be temporary. Any update on that? To me, Bob
> reeks of trustworthiness and it'd be a big loss to take him
> off there. He's more Cronkite-ish than Dan Rather ever was.
> Bob should have gotten the job after Walter stepped down in
> 1981.
>
> OK, I'm not trying to make this into a Dallas vs Houston
> fight---Schieffer from North Texas, and Rather from Houston;
> just looking for info and objectivity. Who do YOU like or
> trust from the new evening news anchors? Should Fox jump in
> with an evening newscast of their own?
>
Walter said last spring that he suggested Schieffer for the job when he (Walter) stepped down. Bob is a good fit and a qualified journalist. John Roberts has been rumored to take over including Katie Couric.
 
> 1. CBS should have replaced Walter Cronkite with Charles
> Kuralt. He actually anchored during the transition period
> (several months) between Walter and Dan.

There was no transition period between Cronkite and Rather. One run ended, the other took over. Kuralt did fill in on the Evening News from time to time, though.

> 2. The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel...

You can forget about Bryant Gumbel returning to CBS. He bombed on their morning show. So much for star power attraction.
 
> To me, Bob reeks of trustworthiness and it'd be a big loss to take him
> off there. He's more Cronkite-ish than Dan Rather ever was.

If Schieffer was ten years younger, maybe even five, he might be the logical choice. But CBS needs younger talent that will stay around for a while. Schieffer has already announced that he plans to retire in 2007.

> Should Fox jump in with an evening newscast of their own?

No. FOX is doing just fine with their cable news operation, and FOX OTA affils probably prefer counterprogramming the local/network news product on the competition, anyway.
 
> > When Schieffer stepped in as Rather's replacement a few
> > months back, the word out was that CBS was lining up some
> > nouveau talent to spice up the news, do it as a team, and
> > try to bring in younger viewers, and that Bob's tenure
> there
> > would only be temporary. Any update on that? To me, Bob
> > reeks of trustworthiness and it'd be a big loss to take
> him
> > off there. He's more Cronkite-ish than Dan Rather ever
> was.
> > Bob should have gotten the job after Walter stepped down
> in
> > 1981.
> >
> > OK, I'm not trying to make this into a Dallas vs Houston
> > fight---Schieffer from North Texas, and Rather from
> Houston;
> > just looking for info and objectivity. Who do YOU like or
>
> > trust from the new evening news anchors? Should Fox jump
> in
> > with an evening newscast of their own?
> >
> Walter said last spring that he suggested Schieffer for the
> job when he (Walter) stepped down. Bob is a good fit and a
> qualified journalist. John Roberts has been rumored to take
> over including Katie Couric.
>
Walter might have SAID that last spring, but when Walter actually stepped down, he said it was because he didn't want CBS to lose Dan Rather, who was being actively pursued by ABC.
 
> > 1. CBS should have replaced Walter Cronkite with Charles
> > Kuralt. He actually anchored during the transition period
>
> > (several months) between Walter and Dan.
>
> There was no transition period between Cronkite and Rather.
> One run ended, the other took over. Kuralt did fill in on
> the Evening News from time to time, though.
>
> > 2. The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and Bryant
> Gumbel...
>
> You can forget about Bryant Gumbel returning to CBS. He
> bombed on their morning show. So much for star power
> attraction.
>
With all due respect, there most definitely was a transition period between Walter and Dan! I remember it very well. Since the ratings actually went UP with Charles anchoring, all of the TV pundits were saying that he should have gotten the spot -- not Dan.
 
> With all due respect, there most definitely was a transition
> period between Walter and Dan! I remember it very well.
> Since the ratings actually went UP with Charles anchoring,
> all of the TV pundits were saying that he should have gotten
> the spot -- not Dan.
>

There was no transition period between Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather on the "CBS Evening News." Cronkite's last broadcast was on Friday, March 6, 1981. Rather's first broadcast was on Monday, March 9, 1981. Not only do I specifically remember there being no transition, it is discussed in the book, "Who Killed CBS?" by Peter J. Boyer, and it can be verified on any number of websites.
 
> > With all due respect, there most definitely was a
> transition
> > period between Walter and Dan! I remember it very well.
> > Since the ratings actually went UP with Charles anchoring,
>
> > all of the TV pundits were saying that he should have
> gotten
> > the spot -- not Dan.
> >
>
> There was no transition period between Walter Cronkite and
> Dan Rather on the "CBS Evening News." Cronkite's last
> broadcast was on Friday, March 6, 1981. Rather's first
> broadcast was on Monday, March 9, 1981. Not only do I
> specifically remember there being no transition, it is
> discussed in the book, "Who Killed CBS?" by Peter J. Boyer,
> and it can be verified on any number of websites.
>
There was no transition period. Charles Kuralt substituted on occasion.Roger Mudd thought he had the inside tract,and was peeved when he didn't get it. So he went to NBC thinking they would make him an anchor. They did ,but only on the weekends,so he left there and has been residing on the History channel ever since.
 
> > > With all due respect, there most definitely was a
> > transition
> > > period between Walter and Dan! I remember it very well.
>
> > > Since the ratings actually went UP with Charles
> anchoring,
> >
> > > all of the TV pundits were saying that he should have
> > gotten
> > > the spot -- not Dan.
> > >
> >
> > There was no transition period between Walter Cronkite and
>
> > Dan Rather on the "CBS Evening News." Cronkite's last
> > broadcast was on Friday, March 6, 1981. Rather's first
> > broadcast was on Monday, March 9, 1981. Not only do I
> > specifically remember there being no transition, it is
> > discussed in the book, "Who Killed CBS?" by Peter J.
> Boyer,
> > and it can be verified on any number of websites.
> >
> There was no transition period. Charles Kuralt substituted
> on occasion.Roger Mudd thought he had the inside tract,and
> was peeved when he didn't get it. So he went to NBC thinking
> they would make him an anchor. They did ,but only on the
> weekends,so he left there and has been residing on the
> History channel ever since.
>
CBS passed over Mudd because of his longtime refusal to do
stories outside Washington; Rather had long been willing to
go anywhere in the world to get a story.

I still think John Roberts ought to be the permanent CBS
anchor. He's young and no-nonsense. But I think Katie
Couric would be a mistake; I see her as much a personality
as a journalist.

As for a Fox evening newscast, forget it. Rupert Murdoch
has said he thinks the network evening news is a dinosaur,
and it would be a tough, TOUGH sell to get the affiliates to
give up their sitcom blocks or, on some of the o&os, local
news for network news.
 
> As for a Fox evening newscast, forget it. Rupert Murdoch
> has said he thinks the network evening news is a dinosaur,
> and it would be a tough, TOUGH sell to get the affiliates to
> give up their sitcom blocks or, on some of the o&os, local
> news for network news.
>

Don't put any money on that. There's been talk. Also, a network O&O has no choice about running something from the network. The net makes the call.
 
> > > With all due respect, there most definitely was a
> > transition
> > > period between Walter and Dan! I remember it very well.
>
> > > Since the ratings actually went UP with Charles
> anchoring,
> >
> > > all of the TV pundits were saying that he should have
> > gotten
> > > the spot -- not Dan.
> > >
> >
> > There was no transition period between Walter Cronkite and
>
> > Dan Rather on the "CBS Evening News." Cronkite's last
> > broadcast was on Friday, March 6, 1981. Rather's first
> > broadcast was on Monday, March 9, 1981. Not only do I
> > specifically remember there being no transition, it is
> > discussed in the book, "Who Killed CBS?" by Peter J.
> Boyer,
> > and it can be verified on any number of websites.
> >
> There was no transition period. Charles Kuralt substituted
> on occasion.Roger Mudd thought he had the inside tract,and
> was peeved when he didn't get it. So he went to NBC thinking
> they would make him an anchor. They did ,but only on the
> weekends,so he left there and has been residing on the
> History channel ever since.
>
Maybe semantics is getting in the way here. There was NO "interim" period. Dan Rather was named as Walter's successor. However, there most definitely WAS a transition period. Dan did NOT take over on the next business day. Charles Kuralt "substituted" for a number of weeks until Dan was ready to take the anchor chair.

This is the truth. I've seen a lot of mistakes in books and, particularly, on web sites. The problem is that you have to be 42+ years old to really remember the transition from Walter to Dan. I was in college at the time and was fascinated by newscasts. I watched Walter's last newscast in 1981 and watched Charles Kuralt for the next number of weeks until Dan took over.
 
> > > > With all due respect, there most definitely was a
> > > transition
> > > > period between Walter and Dan! I remember it very
> well.
> >
> > > > Since the ratings actually went UP with Charles
> > anchoring,
> > >
> > > > all of the TV pundits were saying that he should have
> > > gotten
> > > > the spot -- not Dan.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There was no transition period between Walter Cronkite
> and
> >
> > > Dan Rather on the "CBS Evening News." Cronkite's last
> > > broadcast was on Friday, March 6, 1981. Rather's first
> > > broadcast was on Monday, March 9, 1981. Not only do I
> > > specifically remember there being no transition, it is
> > > discussed in the book, "Who Killed CBS?" by Peter J.
> > Boyer,
> > > and it can be verified on any number of websites.
> > >
> > There was no transition period. Charles Kuralt substituted
>
> > on occasion.Roger Mudd thought he had the inside tract,and
>
> > was peeved when he didn't get it. So he went to NBC
> thinking
> > they would make him an anchor. They did ,but only on the
> > weekends,so he left there and has been residing on the
> > History channel ever since.
> >
> Maybe semantics is getting in the way here. There was NO
> "interim" period. Dan Rather was named as Walter's
> successor. However, there most definitely WAS a transition
> period. Dan did NOT take over on the next business day.
> Charles Kuralt "substituted" for a number of weeks until Dan
> was ready to take the anchor chair.
>
> This is the truth. I've seen a lot of mistakes in books
> and, particularly, on web sites. The problem is that you
> have to be 42+ years old to really remember the transition
> from Walter to Dan. I was in college at the time and was
> fascinated by newscasts. I watched Walter's last newscast
> in 1981 and watched Charles Kuralt for the next number of
> weeks until Dan took over.
>
I have Walter's last newscast on tape" " I will be on assignment and Dan Rather will occupy this chair for the forseeable future". Charles filled in for one week while Dan was wrapping up a 60 minutes story in Afghanistan on the Muhjadeen.
 
> > > > > With all due respect, there most definitely was a
> > > > transition
> > > > > period between Walter and Dan! I remember it very
> > well.
> > >
> > > > > Since the ratings actually went UP with Charles
> > > anchoring,
> > > >
> > > > > all of the TV pundits were saying that he should
> have
> > > > gotten
> > > > > the spot -- not Dan.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was no transition period between Walter Cronkite
>
> > and
> > >
> > > > Dan Rather on the "CBS Evening News." Cronkite's last
>
> > > > broadcast was on Friday, March 6, 1981. Rather's
> first
> > > > broadcast was on Monday, March 9, 1981. Not only do I
>
> > > > specifically remember there being no transition, it is
>
> > > > discussed in the book, "Who Killed CBS?" by Peter J.
> > > Boyer,
> > > > and it can be verified on any number of websites.
> > > >
> > > There was no transition period. Charles Kuralt
> substituted
> >
> > > on occasion.Roger Mudd thought he had the inside
> tract,and
> >
> > > was peeved when he didn't get it. So he went to NBC
> > thinking
> > > they would make him an anchor. They did ,but only on the
>
> > > weekends,so he left there and has been residing on the
> > > History channel ever since.
> > >
> > Maybe semantics is getting in the way here. There was NO
> > "interim" period. Dan Rather was named as Walter's
> > successor. However, there most definitely WAS a
> transition
> > period. Dan did NOT take over on the next business day.
> > Charles Kuralt "substituted" for a number of weeks until
> Dan
> > was ready to take the anchor chair.
> >
> > This is the truth. I've seen a lot of mistakes in books
> > and, particularly, on web sites. The problem is that you
> > have to be 42+ years old to really remember the transition
>
> > from Walter to Dan. I was in college at the time and was
> > fascinated by newscasts. I watched Walter's last newscast
>
> > in 1981 and watched Charles Kuralt for the next number of
> > weeks until Dan took over.
> >
> I have Walter's last newscast on tape" " I will be on
> assignment and Dan Rather will occupy this chair for the
> forseeable future". Charles filled in for one week while Dan
> was wrapping up a 60 minutes story in Afghanistan on the
> Muhjadeen.
>
Exactly! I absolutely remember the last newscast, but wasn't rich enough to have a VCR at the time (they were about a $1000 in 1981). But I still remember that Charles anchored for a number of weeks. Otherwise, why would the critics have pointed out that Charles' ratings had spiked over Walter's???
 
> > > > > > With all due respect, there most definitely was a
> > > > > transition
> > > > > > period between Walter and Dan! I remember it very
>
> > > well.
> > > >
> > > > > > Since the ratings actually went UP with Charles
> > > > anchoring,
> > > > >
> > > > > > all of the TV pundits were saying that he should
> > have
> > > > > gotten
> > > > > > the spot -- not Dan.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There was no transition period between Walter
> Cronkite
> >
> > > and
> > > >
> > > > > Dan Rather on the "CBS Evening News." Cronkite's
> last
> >
> > > > > broadcast was on Friday, March 6, 1981. Rather's
> > first
> > > > > broadcast was on Monday, March 9, 1981. Not only do
> I
> >
> > > > > specifically remember there being no transition, it
> is
> >
> > > > > discussed in the book, "Who Killed CBS?" by Peter J.
>
> > > > Boyer,
> > > > > and it can be verified on any number of websites.
> > > > >
> > > > There was no transition period. Charles Kuralt
> > substituted
> > >
> > > > on occasion.Roger Mudd thought he had the inside
> > tract,and
> > >
> > > > was peeved when he didn't get it. So he went to NBC
> > > thinking
> > > > they would make him an anchor. They did ,but only on
> the
> >
> > > > weekends,so he left there and has been residing on the
>
> > > > History channel ever since.
> > > >
> > > Maybe semantics is getting in the way here. There was
> NO
> > > "interim" period. Dan Rather was named as Walter's
> > > successor. However, there most definitely WAS a
> > transition
> > > period. Dan did NOT take over on the next business day.
>
> > > Charles Kuralt "substituted" for a number of weeks until
>
> > Dan
> > > was ready to take the anchor chair.
> > >
> > > This is the truth. I've seen a lot of mistakes in books
>
> > > and, particularly, on web sites. The problem is that
> you
> > > have to be 42+ years old to really remember the
> transition
> >
> > > from Walter to Dan. I was in college at the time and
> was
> > > fascinated by newscasts. I watched Walter's last
> newscast
> >
> > > in 1981 and watched Charles Kuralt for the next number
> of
> > > weeks until Dan took over.
> > >
> > I have Walter's last newscast on tape" " I will be on
> > assignment and Dan Rather will occupy this chair for the
> > forseeable future". Charles filled in for one week while
> Dan
> > was wrapping up a 60 minutes story in Afghanistan on the
> > Muhjadeen.
> >
> Exactly! I absolutely remember the last newscast, but
> wasn't rich enough to have a VCR at the time (they were
> about a $1000 in 1981). But I still remember that Charles
> anchored for a number of weeks. Otherwise, why would the
> critics have pointed out that Charles' ratings had spiked
> over Walter's???
>
It was one week,trust me:) Why did his ratings peaked over Walter's? Viewers were curious when Dan would start, new set design,etc. Charles also was a tremendous hit with "Sunday Morning" and his loyal fan base flocked to the evening news.
 
Schieffer is a trustworthy news journalist in the highest degree with an intense grounding in everyday man...the only problem with all of that is that model for an evening news anchor is 30, perhaps 40 years archaic.

Taking nothing away from Schieffer, the fact is the evening news is just not the mainstay it once was. There was a time when it was the icon of national news reporting. Not unlike other types of media, the sheer number of choices no longer make that viable.

CBS has stated head-on that they envision a new groundbreaking broadcast that is modeled after today's viewer and mindset. Why they haven't found the formula for that yet is curious.

It used to be that the mighty networks dumped endless amounts of cash into news operations, often unprofitable, for the sake of providing the "public service" they so often quote. Clearly, that environment no longer exists. News is run more and more as a business proposition as is entertainment. Operating at a loss does not work into any business equation in any operation this day and age.

Bottom line: ABC, CBS, and NBC will probably continue to reduce the evening news presence as audiences that are interested in that type of programming continue to slide over to CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc...and there could very well come a day where the major 3 (or 4) offer no evening news at all.

An "Information, entertainment" type program like the "Today" show might be the replacement. Shorter and faster paced than the laid back "Today" show format, but relaxed, less staunchlike, multi-anchored, and lots of quick hits like they do on "ET", "Inside Edition" and the like. They'd take care of the top stories at the top and then begin sliding toward informatin oriented issues and top of mind awareness stories like the morning shows do.

I actually like the idea.
 
With all due respect...some hard evidence

> With all due respect, there most definitely was
> a transition period between Walter and Dan! I remember it
> very well.

The transition period lasted all of one weekend. Cronkite's last broadcast was on Friday, March 6, 1981. That's not a date I'd be likely to forget...it's also my birthday, and it was a big deal to me to be spending it watching Uncle Walter sign off.

Rather took over the following Monday, March 9:

tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...

As for Kuralt, a search of the Vanderbilt archives shows that he anchored the Evening News for three weeks in the summer of 1980, beginning August 19. He did not anchor the Evening News at all in 1981 (and, indeed, didn't even have any pieces that appeared on the broadcast that year). If memory serves, that was the period when he was doing not only Sunday Morning but also the weekday morning news, in a brief attempt to carry the Sunday Morning format over to weekdays.

Kuralt returned to the Evening News anchor chair for two weeks, beginning August 27, 1982. He had also by then begun contributing "On the Road" pieces to the broadcast, the first of which aired 5/31/82. <P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
 
Re: With all due respect...some hard evidence

You are correct
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom