• 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

Charlie Gibson resigning

Count one less household viewing ABC's World News Tonight when Charlie Gibson retires.

I would have thought that George Stephanopoulos would have been one of the top finalists for the lead anchor position.

Or what ABC should have done, if the network brass were smart, was try to lure Lester Holt away from NBC and hire him to replace Gibson.

For ABC to hitch their hopes on Diane Sawyer was one of the dumbest moves since CBS hired Katie Couric.
 
Yeah, someone with that kind of hard news resume and experience is sure a bad decision.

Complain that they hire people without the experience, complain when they do hire them.
 
imhomerjay said:
Yeah, someone with that kind of hard news resume and experience is sure a bad decision.

Complain that they hire people without the experience, complain when they do hire them.
Click to expand...

Hard news resume! Diane Sawyer? Oh come on! She was hired not because of her journalist talents but because (at one time) she was a "looker."

Just look at the 2008 election night coverage and see who carried the broadcast. It was Charlie Gibson. All Sawyer did was offer fluff.
 
That's too bad. I liked Charlie Gibson (though I watch NBC Nightly News). I will watch the CBS Evening News out of sheer laziness in switching the channel after our local news ends, but only if Russ Mitchell is there filling in/on Sundays when NN airs in a different time block. ABC I watch on a rare occasion. But now, I guess I won't really be watching WNT at all. I don't really like their weekend anchor.
 
Ah, good to know you're so in the know about someone's (David Westin's) thought process. How dare she be an attractive woman..that clearly disqualifies her, right? Only ugly people can be journalists?

News flash--when people are hired for looks, the usual situation is that the person is south of 60, not north.

Her resume over the years at both CBS and ABC speaks for itself. One night's distribution of coverage assignments doesn't negate that.
 
imhomerjay said:
Ah, good to know you're so in the know about someone's (David Westin's) thought process. How dare she be an attractive woman..that clearly disqualifies her, right? Only ugly people can be journalists?

News flash--when people are hired for looks, the usual situation is that the person is south of 60, not north.

Her resume over the years at both CBS and ABC speaks for itself. One night's distribution of coverage assignments doesn't negate that.
Click to expand...

If you want to watch Diane Sawyer when she starts anchoring ABC's World News Tonight, be my guest. But don't cry in your beer when the network pulls the plug on her, like they did Liz Vargas, because the ratings tank.

One doens not need to have drop-dead looks in order to be successful on TV. What I'm trying to get across is that it takes more than being a runner-up in a beauty pageant for someone to be a good reporter/anchor.

ABC has a number of people who both look good on TV and have far superior journalistic skills than Sawyer.

You mentioned Sawyer's track record. If she had any staying power don't you think her former employers would have fought to keep her?

Here is my prediction. Sawyer will last about a year, perhaps two, then ABC will toss her over the side and find another person to anchor World News Tonight.

Unlike CBS, ABC won't continue to dump money down the drain just to prove that they didn't make a mistake when it came to hiring a network anchor.

I still maintain the smart thing for ABC would be to hire Lester Holt away from NBC and give him Gibson's job. Not because Holt is black but because he's a good anchor and newscaster.
 
Fighting to keep someone doesn't mean you can match any offer. ABC got her away from 60 Minutes because they were able to offer more than CBS could. The idea that because CBS simply didn't have available what ABC did at that time is beyond laughable. Taking it back a step, she didn't get on 60 Minutes in the first place because of looks, she got there, and succeeded, because she had the news chops to do so.

As for Liz Vargus, were you capable of reading back then? She asked--asked--to be reassigned. It happens. People's circumstances change and not everyone has the same value system. If protecting her prenancy, a risky one, was that important to her, good for her. I know many a person who would make the same choice; a career is fleeting, a child is not.

Lester Holt is great. But your own logic contradicts the idea ABC should hire him. Using the "if Sawyer was any good the previous employer would have kept her," if ABC succeeded in hiring Holt, it shows he's not actually good because NBC didn't fight hard enough to keep him. The only way he can be demonstrably staying power is to stay with NBC, right? I mean, that's given as a proof point that Sawyer has none.
 
Diane Sawyer's "hard news" credibility is very shaky and most of that experience is from long ago. For the most part, she's been a feature reporter. The more I think about this, the worse of a move it seems on the part of ABC. Here they have their #1 anchor retiring, which could not possibly be a shock to them because he wasn't in for the long run when he took the assignment. And, they're replacing him with Diane Sawyer? You need strength in that position - fluffiness doesn't cut it. Look at Couric's ratings. They're horrible. And, Diane Sawyer isn't much stronger at the position than Couric is. Basically, she's an older and slightly more sophisticated version of Couric. And, though she was beautiful back in the day, she doesn't have that now. Not enough of it to get male viewers to watch an otherwise weakened newscast anyhow.

I'm sure that ABC had better and younger anchors in their stable to replace Gibson with. Come on!?! George Stephanopolus would have been better. So would have Bill Weir, Jake Tapper, John Stossel and a host of others. Sawyer really isn't a hard news person.

All in all, this is one heck of a gift to Brian Williams and NBC who may end up having the last network evening news show on air within 5 years.
 
If they'd picked Stephanopolus, the whole Clinton connection issue would have reared its head somewhere--never mind that as he's proven on This Week, he's playing it down the middle.
 
He actually has developed some cred on both sides. Fact is, at least we know where Stephanopolous comes from and can see that he's generally been professional enough to play it straight (as you've said). Diane Sawyer, on the other hand, has shown some political bias in sloppy ways. Steppy would have been a better pick for a number of reasons. Let's not forget that Tim Russert was the chief of staff for Sen. Moynihan before going into the media. Yet his professionalism and sense of fair play garnered great respect from both sides. Stephanopolus could do the same - he's headed that way.

He would have been a wiser pick - IMO. More cred, more gravitas (though I hate that term)...
 
lets be honest, if network news were taken as seriously as it was in the days of Cronkite, Brinkley & Jennings, there is NO WAY a Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer would be anchoring network news(not because they are women, but because they are lightweights).
the straight 1 hour evening news with Shepard Smith on Fox is the best newscast on Television.
 
Well, it certainly speaks volumes that Gibson didn't even mention his retirement or replacement last week.

Sleeper, up and comer, dark horse...David Kerley. (former KIRO Seattle and WBBM Chicago anchor)...maybe...someday.
 
Volumes? Please. It speaks nothing. Perhaps he didn't think it needed to be put into that 22 minutes? I mean, seriously, there isn't a hidden meaning and subtext in everything. He wants to retire, announced it to the staff internally. He can't control what other outlets do with that information, but he may well, and justifiably, consider his announcement of a retirement newsworthy that day. When the time comes, then see what's said.
 
imhomerjay said:
Volumes? Please. It speaks nothing. Perhaps he didn't think it needed to be put into that 22 minutes? I mean, seriously, there isn't a hidden meaning and subtext in everything. He wants to retire, announced it to the staff internally. He can't control what other outlets do with that information, but he may well, and justifiably, consider his announcement of a retirement newsworthy that day. When the time comes, then see what's said.
Click to expand...

Not only that, he didn't really want the job to begin with. This is just speculation on my part, but he may have seen himself as Bob Schieffer did: simply an interim anchor. The only difference is that Katie's moving to CBS was a done deal; Charlie's resignation and Diane's appointment as his successor caught the public off-guard.
 
bpatrick said:
Not only that, he didn't really want the job to begin with. This is just speculation on my part, but he may have seen himself as Bob Schieffer did: simply an interim anchor. The only difference is that Katie's moving to CBS was a done deal; Charlie's resignation and Diane's appointment as his successor caught the public off-guard.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but I wonder how long has this been in the making?

Whenever an anchor steps down from their post ( or in the case of death/illness like Peter Jennings for example ) wonder if there was any behind the scene "drama" involving those who wanted the job similar to what was the case with David Letterman & Jay Leno when both wanted Johnny Carson's job when he retired?
 
He has said before he wanted to retire at the end of 2007, but circumstances are what they are, and when asked, he stayed around and took on the assignment.

There isn't always a soap opera behind what people say. Is it hard to imagine that even when he took the World News job, he still felt the desire to retire and get to that part of his life? Some people would rather die behind their desk--even an anchor desk--and that's great for them. Some people might actually feel like they want to enjoy their later years. If it's been in the making, it's been so since he wanted to retire in the first place but put it off to be a team player.

It's been reported that inside ABC News, Diane Sawyer aspired to the World News slot. Nothing unusual there--many people aspire to reach the top of their profession, or to take the next step in their career, whichvever lens you want to view it through. And it was said she never did anything to undermine or openly lobby for the job--i.e., no "drama" or office politics. Just someone who spent many years doing a job and had a normal ambition to succeed.

Save the drama for "General Hospital."
 
imhomerjay said:
Save the drama for "General Hospital."
Click to expand...

....and for local television news.

Over the years whenever a local anchor has either retire/quit/gets fired and there is an opening as a result, I have heard some very interesting stories about how those who wanted that job would do anything and everything to try to get it. Last year at our local ABC affiliate, the weekend anchor had actually quit on the air because she didn't get that weeknight anchor gig. Even going as far as slamming the station's ownership and the other anchors..on the air. I have grave doubts she is still in the biz for pulling a stunt like that.

Dittos with local radio too. Whenever a full-time on-air gig opens up..here comes the drama !! With all the backstabbing, lies, spreading rumors of the staff in the running for the gig, office politics..etc....so much so that one really could write 10 episodes of "General Hospital".

I am sure those on the network level have more class than that.
 
imhomerjay said:
Volumes? Please. It speaks nothing. Perhaps he didn't think it needed to be put into that 22 minutes? I mean, seriously, there isn't a hidden meaning and subtext in everything. He wants to retire, announced it to the staff internally. He can't control what other outlets do with that information, but he may well, and justifiably, consider his announcement of a retirement newsworthy that day. When the time comes, then see what's said.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps it doesn't mean anything. I do know the story was all over the news from other outlets that day. It would seem appropriate to atleast mention it, if only for a few seconds.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom