CBS Wants Katie Couric To Take A Pay Cut

[bpatrick]

Bob Schieffer certainly gave Charlie Gibson a run for his money, but
at age 74 Schieffer's not about to take on the nightly grind (any more
than Groucho, at age 71, when he was offered "The Tonight Show"--poor
analogy, perhaps, but you should get my drift). The bad part is that
Schieffer was actually number one a few weeks, beating both Gibson and
Brian Williams, and he could easily beat both Williams and Diane Sawyer.
But considering Schieffer's age, I still think CBS made a major mistake in
not giving the job to John Roberts, who had everything going for him: the
right age, experience substituting for Rather as well as anchoring on the
weekends.

I definitely agree that Hughes Rudd was the perfect morning anchor; his
grumpy personality fit beautifully at 7 AM.

 

[TheBigA]

Absorb the Evening News unit into the 60 Minutes unit and do 60 Minutes seven nights a week.

What you're basically suggesting is shut down CBS News. Because they can't afford worldwide bureaus with an overnight service and 60 Minutes.

Even a 3rd place morning show is ocean front property. You don't give that up.

The smart thing is to run the Evening News very efficiently. They have some great news readers, like Russ Mitchell, who does a great job on the weekends. They have an inexpensive team in the Early Show. No big name stars that drive up the budget. So that's fine. But they need to create another cash cow. I think that's what the change in management this week is about.

Katie is a great interviewer. They need a big name who can attract big interviews. If they can spread her around to all the units, that's fine. Have her show up in mornings, evenings, 60 Minutes, and specials.

 

[listener-in]

The "star" system in news is one reason - but not the only one - that the networks have had to scale back their coverage and close bureaus around the globe and around the nation. The Brits seem to get along quite well not identifying their main TV news with specific anchors, and just rotate the duty among their staff. It looks as if PBS Newshour has adopted this model at least partially and it doesn't appear to have hurt. The networks should simply not renew the biggie contracts when they expire.

 

[TheBigA]

It looks as if PBS Newshour has adopted this model at least partially and it doesn't appear to have hurt.

It depends. They don't do major newsmaker interviews very often. The kind where the interview itself makes news. As for the Brits, it's easier when you don't have much competition.

In the US, you need a star to attract the superstar interview. Each of the networks has them. If you don't, a big star who's looking to break news will go on Oprah.

 

[Silkie]

Not even 24 hours into his new role as president of CBS' news division, Jeff Fager agrees that Couric should agree to a pay cut if she wants to remain with the network:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-c...nd-courics-contract-with-significant-pay-cut/

DToTheJ, if she took a pay cut the amount of your entire annual salary, whatever it might be, she wouldn't miss it.

 

[listener-in]

It looks as if PBS Newshour has adopted this model at least partially and it doesn't appear to have hurt.

It depends. They don't do major newsmaker interviews very often. The kind where the interview itself makes news. As for the Brits, it's easier when you don't have much competition.

Surely you jest. PBS Newshour does newsmaker interviews all the time - it's what they do. Major or minor is in the eye of the beholder, and if the interview itself "makes news" it's more often than not for reasons that have nothing to do with real news. (The O'Reilly Super Bowl interview with President Obama "made news" only to the extent of confirming that O'Reilly is a self-promoting interrupter). I'm sure the network evening news shows would have a hard time matching in a year the number of major interviews that Newshour does in a month.

As for the Brits not having much competition, there's quite fierce competition among three major organizations, BBC, ITN and Sky, all of which cover more news from around the globe than any of the major US networks. In fact the latter increasingly rely on reports from UK broadcasters where not too long ago they had their own reporters.

 

[TheBigA]

PBS Newshour does newsmaker interviews all the time - it's what they do.

I'm talking about exclusive interviews with people who don't do interviews. They get Obama or Clinton when either of them have something to push. But they're not going to get the very first interview with Congressman Giffords, or the first interview with Mubarek, or something big that everyone wants and is hard to get. They do interviews all the time with college professors, authors, think tank types, and other journalists.

The British level of competition doesn't even come close to internal competition that exists within ABC News for specific interviews among their star correspondents. Once again, I'm talking talking about covering news...I'm talking about MAKING news. That's a very different class of interview. That's why you need at least one big time superstar interviewer. It also looks good to your affiliates, who need a reason to carry some national news show when they have people who are every bit as capable on their own local staff.

 

[MattParker]

What you're basically suggesting is shut down CBS News. Because they can't afford worldwide bureaus with an overnight service and 60 Minutes.

Even a 3rd place morning show is ocean front property. You don't give that up.

The smart thing is to run the Evening News very efficiently. They have some great news readers, like Russ Mitchell, who does a great job on the weekends. They have an inexpensive team in the Early Show. No big name stars that drive up the budget. So that's fine. But they need to create another cash cow. I think that's what the change in management this week is about.

Katie is a great interviewer. They need a big name who can attract big interviews. If they can spread her around to all the units, that's fine. Have her show up in mornings, evenings, 60 Minutes, and specials.

Ocean front property keeps getting eaten up from rising sea levels and from storms. CBS was doing better when they had a mixed local/network morning show. They should go back to it before the house falls in the ocean.

Stop twisting what is said in your eagerness to defend conventional wisdom, the status quo and management stupidity. I did not suggest shutting down CBS News. CBS has already done a good job of that. I did not suggest getting rid of foreign bureaus. Most of them are already gone. What I did suggest is dropping an obsolete format - the Evening News and expanding one that works. The magazine format gets viewers. A five, six or seven day a week magazine can handle breaking news, as needed, but the emphasis will be on depth, on features and on investigation - not superficial stand-ups with talking head sound bites, which is what the Evening News is now. Actually what I am proposing would mean an expanded and more profitable CND.

 

[TheBigA]

I did not suggest shutting down CBS News.

Fewer shows mean less inventory. Less inventory means less money. Less money means less to spend on bureaus, staff, and other tools of journalism. So to say they should give up the Early Show and Evening News in essence means shutting down the department. Unless you have other ways for them to make money.

I agree that the Evening News is an obsolete format. That's why I said very clearly that they should spend less of their resources there. But as long as their affiliates want it (and apparently they do), they should continue to do it. And keep magazine shows in prime time where they can charge premium money for it. Now if you had said they should do more prime time magazines, I would have agreed. But that's not what you said. 60 Minutes is more work intensive and more expensive than Evening News. But it's in prime time, so it makes more. Plus it's an hour. Affiliates won't give up an hour to national programming during dinner time. And the CBS Entertainment department won't give up 6 more hours of prime time a week to News just so they can justify their budget. Even if they give back 10 hours of morning in return.

 

[theradiokid]

OK. Here's a suggestion, then. As BigA points out, networks don't want to carry one hour of news from the network, inturupting their local evening news, and the entertainment department isn't going to give up 6 hours a week. For once, BigA, I agree with you. So, here's the solution: Create a half hour, uh, 60 minutes program, and run it in the slot that CBS evening news now runs in. Problem solved.
--The Radio Kid
(Oswego, NY.)
My email: [email protected]

 

[MattParker]

The prime time access rule exempts news. They can run a news magazine and go back to starting prime time at 7:30pm. Give 6:30 back to the stations. More prime time avails for the network.

 

[TheBigA]

Create a half hour, uh, 60 minutes program, and run it in the slot that CBS evening news now runs in. Problem solved.

Right...call it "30 Minutes." How creative. Here's the problem: That level of production can't be sustained for the amount of money that time period generates. That's why they're asking Katie to take a pay cut. That time period can't afford someone with that salary.

Keep in mind they used to do "60 Minutes II." They also did "West 57th." Both were weekday shows in prime time, and neither generated the kind of ratings or stature as the original. In fact, Don Hewitt seemed to feel that the knock-offs sucked blood from the big battleship.

Personally, I'd like to see Katie get a deal like Bob Costas, where she can sort of free lance on several things on multiple platforms. I'd think that would be more interesting and potentially more profitable for her.

 

[MattParker]

Are you deliberately obtuse, or do you just like to provoke arguments? I am proposing 60 Minutes run for 60 Minutes starting at 7:30. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

 

[TheBigA]

Are you deliberately obtuse, or do you just like to provoke arguments? I am proposing 60 Minutes run for 60 Minutes starting at 7:30. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

I wasn't refering to your post at all, as you can clearly see from the quote I included.

However, as I said, they need to beg 30 minutes (8PM to 8:30) from CBS Entertainment, and that won't be easy. And they need to tell affiliates they can't run an hour of Entertainment Tonight (which is syndicated by CBS) any more from 7 to 8 PM. Good luck in getting either concession in order to run a watered down version of 60 Minutes every night. If you think I defend the status quo, then you have never attempted to discuss anything with an affiliate. They have no interest in change unless it means more money for them. And this whole thread is about finding ways to cut costs at CBS News.

 

[MattParker]

The affiliates get back the half hour that now goes to the Evening News. The entertainment divisions of all three networks seem to be having trouble filling three hours a night. Look at all the prime time re-runs. Look at all the news magazine shows currently peppering prime time.

One of the flaws in the Evening News format is it became a star vehicle. Stars get big bucks on the assumption that the star provides drawing power. The 60 Minutes format is about the story, not the star. Harry Reasoner dies. Mike Wallace steps aside. The show continues without a hiccough: "Hmm. Gee, Mert. I don't think we've seen Mike Wallace on here in a while." The sure sign of bad management and/or a business in decline is an emphasis on cutting cost. The alternative: Grow the business.

And CBS always has a CW station to dump Entertainment Tonight (which is, again, more of a magazine show).

 

[listener-in]

PBS Newshour does newsmaker interviews all the time - it's what they do.

I'm talking about exclusive interviews with people who don't do interviews. They get Obama or Clinton when either of them have something to push. But they're not going to get the very first interview with Congressman Giffords, or the first interview with Mubarek, or something big that everyone wants and is hard to get. They do interviews all the time with college professors, authors, think tank types, and other journalists.

The British level of competition doesn't even come close to internal competition that exists within ABC News for specific interviews among their star correspondents. Once again, I'm talking talking about covering news...I'm talking about MAKING news. That's a very different class of interview. That's why you need at least one big time superstar interviewer. It also looks good to your affiliates, who need a reason to carry some national news show when they have people who are every bit as capable on their own local staff.

If it's all about interviews "making" news than covering it, it's no wonder that we have a population of dumbed-down, low-information voters who are swayed by any cute sound-bite or gotcha moment that comes along. All they do is (perhaps) fatten the broadcasters' bottom line at the expense of the public interest. A single celebrity interview every few weeks doesn't begin to make up for the absence of the kind of grunt work that goes into seeking accountability day in, day out, from powerful people in the public and private sectors whose decisions have a profound effect on our lives.

What do the superstars get their $millions for? If it's to read the news (perhaps with a vanity title of editor-in-chief), staffers who could do that for handsome, but not stellar, salaries are a dime a dozen. If it's to fight for the rare "celebrity" interview that comes along, it seems like a misuse of resources. In the meantime, let's keep on closing bureaus and cutting reporters, and become more and more ignorant of what's behind what's going on around us.

 

[TheBigA]

All they do is (perhaps) fatten the broadcasters' bottom line at the expense of the public interest.

And this is a surprise to you?

If it's to fight for the rare "celebrity" interview that comes along, it seems like a misuse of resources.

It might seem that way, but more people watch the rare celebrity interviews than the college professor talking about his experiences in the Punjab.

 

[TheBigA]

The entertainment divisions of all three networks seem to be having trouble filling three hours a night.

That's no reason to give up your time to another division. It means you work a little harder.

As I said, CBS News tried spreading out the 60 Minutes formula to other days of the week several times before. It's not the solution you seem to think it is.

And at the end of the day, the programming on the network is not what the network wants, but what the affiliates want. If they want an obsolete format rather than some innovative idea, then the network stays with the obsolete format. Because the affiliate always has the option to not carry the network show. Ask Jay Leno what happens when affiliates don't like what you do.

 

[MattParker]

The entertainment divisions of all three networks seem to be having trouble filling three hours a night.

That's no reason to give up your time to another division. It means you work a little harder.

As I said, CBS News tried spreading out the 60 Minutes formula to other days of the week several times before. It's not the solution you seem to think it is.

And at the end of the day, the programming on the network is not what the network wants, but what the affiliates want. If they want an obsolete format rather than some innovative idea, then the network stays with the obsolete format. Because the affiliate always has the option to not carry the network show. Ask Jay Leno what happens when affiliates don't like what you do.

Affiliates have gotten pretty docile. Oh, sure, some of them made noise about Leno. Nobody did anything. What killed Leno were his numbers. The numbers for his show and the numbers for the local news broadcasts that followed it. Including local news on NBC's stations.

I am surprised that more stations haven't dropped the CBS Evening News. I'm shocked, shocked that even more stations haven't bailed out on the morning show. Time was when several stations did drop the Evening News and expanded their local news. Even more did not bother with any of CBS' various morning shows and did much better producing their own local morning shows.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm shocked, shocked that even more stations haven't bailed out on the morning show.

I think a few have. Just a few weeks ago, they replaced the air team. But the benefits of doing it still outweigh the negatives of dropping it.