She comes off too rigid as a nightly news anchor. She was better in the morning doing lighter stories with others to bounce off of.
She is the female version of Scott Pelley.
-
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
Changes Coming To CBS News
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
She is the female version of Scott Pelley.
I can understand where you're coming from. We did see more of Norah's "lighter" side, if you will, on CTM. Whereas now on the evening news, that's no longer the case. Understandably so I might add, because CBS wants a reputation of reporting hard news.
Overall though, I do think CBS (out of the five major news stations) truly resembles news the most these days.
I oh dont ever hardly watch cbs evening news and i definetly tried not to watch when glor hosted it because he was a no talent xxx. Moderator Note: Profane Acronym edited.
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet, you've made several negative comments about the same network newscast that you never watch? A classic.
Whel I enjoyed when josh elliot was with cbs and in my opinion he shouldve gotten the evening news job but cbs is not the smartest network for news and their ratings show that.
Josh Elliot should have been named evening anchor? Yeah....no.
Too rigid? You mean serious? Yes, totally appropriate for a news anchor no matter what the time of day.
People want a friendly face telling the news, not a Catholic school nun.
I want someone who can speak with clarity and can put together complete English sentences. I also want the delivery to be appropriate to the story. As most real news is not full of hilarity it is not important to me to find a friendly face talking head. I am definitely not interested in soft national news. There are way too many important stories to tell (and not one of them include the president's latest lies or the status of Jeffery Epstein's suicide).
IT'S THE CONTENT ___________.
Evening news is just as much entertainment as it is getting information across. If the goal was to present hard news with no fluff or emotion it would be a person sitting in front of a black background with no fancy graphics or music and it would be extremely dull. Network news is in it to make money, it's the only reason it exists. Therefore you will get an anchor who will look good on camera and appeals to the most people.
What would have been so bad about him getting the lead anchor job? At the time josh elliott had already had more experience than jeff glor and norah odonnell combined. Had been a lead anchor for sports center one of the main reporters and later morning news anchor for ABC/ GMA. Has more charisma than jeff glor in my opinion is very good looking so yeah i dont see why he shouldnt have been named nightly news anchor for cbs enterprises.
I wouldn't say it's the ONLY reason. In O'Donnell's case, she has passed the test already. She appeals to MOST people...just not YOU.
Proper American English usage is a problem for many. Bad grammar and poor diction are now commonplace in broadcast journalism. (One such example is Norah O'Donnell's consistent misuse of the nominative case after a preposition. Ugh!)
Your definition of what national evening news should be and mine are polar opposites. I go back to the Cronkite days which were stark by comparison. Given appropriate content it is my vision of what a news program should be. If you don't like that then tune in The Onion and get your laughs that way. Real news is way too serious to devolve into "happy news".
As far as the CBS Talking Head, she is easy on the eyes and ears but I don't find a significant shortcoming in either NBC or ABC either (except perhaps for their choices of stories).
The days of a Cronkite style newscast are long gone. Maybe NPR will do something close but you won't get that from network news anymore.
It is really unfortunate that we don't get a lot of valuable news from networks either. Seems they have adopted much the same process (if you can call it that) as the local news people.
I know when I get my cup of morning coffee and sit down in front of my TV to catch newsworthy events of the day I am regularly disappointed to see nothing but video friendly stories (car crashes, house fires, the royal family and murders of various kinds). I've also noticed lately that these same segments, verbatim, are being rebroadcast throughout the week and on weekends (and this includes the networks).
If it weren't for the cheerful weather girl repeating the same forecast every 10-15 minutes I might go shoot myself.
They're long gone because the networks' new owners in the late '80s (Laurence Tisch at CBS, General Electric at NBC, and Capital Cities at ABC) decided that ALL departments of the network must turn a profit. The network news divisions, from what I remember, always lost money under previous leaderships, and those losses were written off because, well, it was the news, and having a top-notch news division was considered prestige even if it lost money or broke even at best. That prestige was good for the networks, for their affiliates, and for the country in general.
It just got much worse in the last 20 years. As for me, I'll take the Second Coming of Huntley & Brinkley, Uncle Walter, or Howard K. Smith than the drivel and unqualified/inexperienced "newspeople" that are on the air today. The networks try to make it look "old school," but it just ain't working.
Now get off my lawn!
Now get off my lawn!
What he said!!!
What market are you watching in because most local newscast are not all like that. Maby you watching like fox 5 in new york or something that thrives on that type of coverage.
- Status