CBS Evening News Anchor

[TheBigA]

Acosta's point is that we really don't have media heroes like that today and I have to agree with him.

I'd suggest there's a connection between having "media heroes" and the posts about trust in media. Things have changed since the 1970s. People have a lot more options. They're less tolerant of things they don't like. They're less willing to be "lectured to" by people in the media. We can see that in the ratings for TV news. I have to wonder how much longer the networks will continue doing things like the Evening News if things continue where they are.

I really don't give a damn about what the ratings for the media that do this are--the stakes are way too high and go far beyond areas that can be covered on this Board!

The companies that do the news care a lot about the ratings, because that's how they get paid. It costs money to report news. At one time, the networks made enough money with entertainment to cover the losses of reporting the news. With the dilution of audience from broadcast TV, that's no longer the case. Walter Cronkite didn't have to compete against Fox News and the internet. In his time, CBS didn't have to compete against Netflix and streaming TV. Because of that, the news business has changed. Comparing it to how it was 50 years ago is completely obsolete.

This president and some of the people who work for him worked in the media. They know that side of the business. They know about ratings and creating "viral" content. That's what they're doing, and how they're trying to influence public opinion. They're not traditional politicians who care about public service. They're TV stars who want to get ratings, just like TV. Walter Cronkite didn't have that to deal with 50 years ago.

 

[tall_guy1]

I'd suggest there's a connection between having "media heroes" and the posts about trust in media. Things have changed since the 1970s. People have a lot more options. They're less tolerant of things they don't like. They're less willing to be "lectured to" by people in the media. We can see that in the ratings for TV news. I have to wonder how much longer the networks will continue doing things like the Evening News if things continue where they are.



The companies that do the news care a lot about the ratings, because that's how they get paid. It costs money to report news. At one time, the networks made enough money with entertainment to cover the losses of reporting the news. With the dilution of audience from broadcast TV, that's no longer the case. Walter Cronkite didn't have to compete against Fox News and the internet. In his time, CBS didn't have to compete against Netflix and streaming TV. Because of that, the news business has changed. Comparing it to how it was 50 years ago is completely obsolete.

This president and some of the people who work for him worked in the media. They know that side of the business. They know about ratings and creating "viral" content. That's what they're doing, and how they're trying to influence public opinion. They're not traditional politicians who care about public service. They're TV stars who want to get ratings, just like TV. Walter Cronkite didn't have that to deal with 50 years ago.

ABC World News is #1 in all of linear television with David Muir with 7-8 million viewers. So those newscasts are still very relevant.

 

[CTListener]

ABC World News is #1 in all of linear television with David Muir with 7-8 million viewers. So those newscasts are still very relevant.

7 to 8 million people in a nation of more than 300 million. Yup, really relevant. More people are getting their news, or what they think of as "news," from various internet sources, or just ignoring news completely and vegging out to continuous music.

 

[tall_guy1]

I'd suggest there's a connection between having "media heroes" and the posts about trust in media. Things have changed since the 1970s. People have a lot more options. They're less tolerant of things they don't like. They're less willing to be "lectured to" by people in the media. We can see that in the ratings for TV news. I have to wonder how much longer the networks will continue doing things like the Evening News if things continue where they are.

Likewise, left wing viewers are equally repelled to being lectured to about trans issues, socialism, and anything else that spews from Fox News. Incorporating any of that immediately repels them.

 

[tall_guy1]

Remember Jim Acosta?

Jim Acosta: Walter Cronkite 'Spinning in His Grave' After Changes at CBS Evening News

"What we should be having in this country is a free press that can hold the (expletive) President the United States accountable without everybody worried whether they're going to lose their (expletive) job."

barrettmedia.com

Once again, the only name anyone remembers from CBS News is Walter Cronkite, and he left 50 years ago. If he's the only name, perhaps nobody has watched CBS News since then. That's a problem if your business is about attracting viewers for advertisers.

Jim Acosta attacked the president to his face. What was the result? Is he still at CNN? No. Take a look around. Congress isn't holding this president accountable. The courts aren't holding the president accountable. Other world leaders aren't holding this president accountable. The American people aren't holding this president accountable. Why?

Maybe he's part of the problem with the media. They shouldn't "be" the story, they should report the news in an objective way and in a calm manner. That's the only way the American public will respect them again.

 

[tall_guy1]

I'm sorry but your previous rhetoric on this and other threads on this issue says otherwise. Either the commercial media is going to stand up to this president despite the threats he is making or it isn't. Thus far, commercial media companies have (mostly) fallen in line behind him, even when legal experts have stated publicly that the cases he is making against them are weak and without legal justification. Of course, media organizations aren't the only ones doing this. But media organizations are tasked with providing the public with truthful and accurate information about what is happening in the world around them, including in their own country. And that means standing up to a president who is determined to not be held accountable for his decisions by *anybody*.

I think he basically wants the news to be "entertainment" to people, integrity be damned, in order to get views.

 

[tall_guy1]

For those thinking CBS is picking up new viewers, think again.

 

[TheBigA]

Fox didn't so much create these viewers as it *amplified the positions that these viewers already had.

Fox News was created by republican strategist Roger Ailes, who was media consultant to Ronald Reagan. He felt there was an unserved audience for news. So yes, that was the idea.

 

[DavinaR]

More threats against CBS news.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/17/business/media/cbs-news-trump-interview.html?utm_source=Poynter+Institute#038;utm_campaign=6c67164ed0-01202026+-+The+Poynter+Report&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-6c67164ed0-390905140&mc_cid=6c67164ed0&mc_eid=b345a4f857

 

[kevtronics]

This is just like Putin's dismantling of the Russian press, minus (so far) people falling out of windows or getting poisoned.

 

[TheBigA]

In this thread, there have been a number of opinions expressed about the role of journalists. I'm sure people remember Bill Plante, the CBS News reporter. His step-son is Chris Plante, a conservative talk show host. Here's his view on the role of journalists:

Plante claims that instead of viewing Watergate as two journalists doing their job, the famed incident is viewed as “the two guys at the Post brought down Richard Nixon. And that’s not their job to bring down Richard Nixon, it’s their job to report the news.”

He later added, “Out of the Watergate era, a school of thought emerged in journalism schools and in newsrooms across the country that you’re supposed to be an activist, and not a straight journalist. Activism is not journalism, and journalism is not activism. And ne’er the twain shall meet.”

My view is they never went into that story to bring down a president. That may have been what happened, but through it all, all they did was report the news and follow the money. By reporting the story in a paper read by people in congress, it persuaded the politicians to bring down a president. Was any of their reporting wrong? I'm not aware that it was. Perhaps the movie glamorized it more than the reality. But that's not the fault of the reporters.

Thoughts?

 

[tall_guy1]

In this thread, there have been a number of opinions expressed about the role of journalists. I'm sure people remember Bill Plante, the CBS News reporter. His step-son is Chris Plante, a conservative talk show host. Here's his view on the role of journalists:



My view is they never went into that story to bring down a president. That may have been what happened, but through it all, all they did was report the news and follow the money. By reporting the story in a paper read by people in congress, it persuaded the politicians to bring down a president. Was any of their reporting wrong? I'm not aware that it was. Perhaps the movie glamorized it more than the reality. But that's not the fault of the reporters.

Thoughts?

Agree in part....disagree in other. Most of the first term the press was "the resistance" which alienated people. Think that should have been avoided, but leaning right is a step worse. They should aim for just factual reporting without bias. You said earlier you think its good when newscasts are provocative, so that counteracts your point.

 

[tall_guy1]

In this thread, there have been a number of opinions expressed about the role of journalists. I'm sure people remember Bill Plante, the CBS News reporter. His step-son is Chris Plante, a conservative talk show host. Here's his view on the role of journalists:



My view is they never went into that story to bring down a president. That may have been what happened, but through it all, all they did was report the news and follow the money. By reporting the story in a paper read by people in congress, it persuaded the politicians to bring down a president. Was any of their reporting wrong? I'm not aware that it was. Perhaps the movie glamorized it more than the reality. But that's not the fault of the reporters.

Thoughts?

As for journalism being activism...it can be. It can bring to light prejudices (like that of LGBT or minorities) and help people see their side of the story. There is still a lot of transphobia today and outright lies that right wing media has cultivated that need people to push against it. Maybe the thing that needs awareness next is psychosis-that seems to be impacting a lot of people on the right.

 

[CTListener]

Accusing a large group of people with certain views of having a serious mental illness is a very slippery slope, whether it's targeting the right or the left, and no matter who is doing the accusing. That's why Michael Savage's mantra of "Liberalism is a mental disorder" sent shivers down my spine.

 

[DavinaR]

Accusing a large group of people with certain views of having a serious mental illness is a very slippery slope, whether it's targeting the right or the left, and no matter who is doing the accusing. That's why Michael Savage's mantra of "Liberalism is a mental disorder" sent shivers down my spine.

I have heard he has a weekend show on Newsmax for a couple months now.

 

[ted chittenden]

In this thread, there have been a number of opinions expressed about the role of journalists. I'm sure people remember Bill Plante, the CBS News reporter. His step-son is Chris Plante, a conservative talk show host. Here's his view on the role of journalists:



My view is they never went into that story to bring down a president. That may have been what happened, but through it all, all they did was report the news and follow the money. By reporting the story in a paper read by people in congress, it persuaded the politicians to bring down a president. Was any of their reporting wrong? I'm not aware that it was. Perhaps the movie glamorized it more than the reality. But that's not the fault of the reporters.

Thoughts?

The kind of reporting that The Washington Post reporters did is called investigative journalism. Chris Plant may not like or agree with it but its role is to bring to the attention of the public possible wrongdoings by either corporations or governments that, if left unchecked, could harm a lot of people. Keep in mind that the goal of this type of reporting is exposure, not necessarily bringing down leaders (although if it results in that, it's probably a good thing). Anyway, investigative journalism began with the newspapers in the late 1800s and has had a tremendous effect in keeping our government and corporations honest through the years.

 

[Larry]

Keep in mind that the goal of this type of reporting is exposure, not necessarily bringing down leaders (although if it results in that, it's probably a good thing)

I believe we could say Nixon brought himself down, the reporters just exposed his actions.

 

[Don CT]

I believe we could say Nixon brought himself down, the reporters just exposed his actions.

The Republican Party also threatened to remove him.

 

[KeithE4]

The Republican Party also threatened to remove him.

Republican Senators Hugh Scott (the Senate minority leader) and Barry Goldwater, and Rep. John Rhodes (the House minority leader) told Nixon to his face that he had no chance of acquittal, his Presidency was over, and should resign. He resigned the next day.

 

[Don CT]

Republican Senators Hugh Scott (the Senate minority leader) and Barry Goldwater, and Rep. John Rhodes (the House minority leader) told Nixon to his face that he had no chance of acquittal, his Presidency was over, and should resign. He resigned the next day.

Does today’s GOP have those same balls to say that to Trump.