"Implosion" At CBS News?

[DToTheJ]

This week, The Daily Beast reported on "collapse" and "implosion" at CBS News, and speculated that staffers would get the ax:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...on-katie-couric-ratings-drop-layoffs-to-come/

Which led a CBS News spokesperson to respond to what he/she called "a ridiculous series of outright fabrications" on The Daily Beast's part:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/cbs-...rse-hobby-of-ridiculous-collapse-predictions/

Meanwhile, Katie Couric hasn't been striking ratings gold, and has been absent as the anchor of the evening news recently... who do you believe?

 

[imhomerjay]

Vacation does not equal some hidden other story. :

 

[searadiofreak]

Vacation does not equal some hidden other story. :

Except, everyone in media knows that a vacation over one week is suspicious, and dangerous. Unless you are Katie Couric...maybe...I smell big changes at CBS News.

 

[sandiegoinexile]

Ah, the Daily Beast, desperate for more eyeballs. How nice of them to cite in the 14th paragraph that the other two broadcast news divisions shed massive headcount in the past 4 years. Now, it's CBS turn.

Hardly shocking. Barely newsworthy.

Oh, and maybe CBS would be in better shape if it's internal critics stopped using $24 words: "sepulchral"? Really?

 

[TheBigA]

Evening news has never been about ratings. If it was, they'd all turn off the lights and go home. Neither ABC nor NBC are getting "GLEE" like ratings with their evening casts either. So often, these articles from from a political perspective (CBS and liberal news is a loser) or directed at Katie (what did she do that pissed people off so much?). There are so many factors involved in ratings, such as the number of affuiliates, and the quality of lead-in (most of the majo9r CBS local affiliates aren't doing well with evening news either). At the end of the day, it's a half hour of air time. Comparing the three shows, they all appeal to the same advertisers. They probably all make about the same amount of money. And CBS is still king with 60 Minutes.

The point is afiliates like the world and national wrap-up in the middle of their news blocks. The anchor really doesn't matter. CBS could hire Brian Williams, and I'd bet they'd still be in 3rd place. And the biggest thing hurting CBS News is not having a 24/7 cable channel to help spread out their costs. That may change if the CNN merger happens. But those two companies have been destined to be together since Ted Turner's ill-fated attempt to buy CBS in 1988.

 

[Skynet74]

I still think there is a lot of gender bias in the world. I don't blame the low ratings on Katie doing a bad job. I just happen to think that people still prefer to watch a man deliver the news.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

I'm not sure how the FCC dictates news content, but in Canada, (ratings or not!) it is dictated that there must be some form of news content on most local tv stations.

If there is no FCC requirement to carry news in the States, and the big networks all pull out, that will be great for the last station (with 6 o'clock news) standing! Ratings will be amazing!

 

[PTBoardOp94]

There is no FCC requirement to run news.

TV News isn't going anywhere. Whether CBS/ABC/NBC keep on doing the 6:30 half-hour newscast is in doubt, though.

 

[imhomerjay]

And the pesky fact that many of the larger CBS stations happen to have poor showings in local news leading in to the CBS Evening News wouldn't be a factor at work (among many). Nope, not at all.

 

[BRNout]

I still think there is a lot of gender bias in the world. I don't blame the low ratings on Katie doing a bad job. I just happen to think that people still prefer to watch a man deliver the news.

Perhaps there is a bit of that. After all, people tend to prefer an authoritative anchor with that bedrock 'voice of God' quality.

The thing is, there's a lot more than that going on with Katie. Her problem is that she just doesn't have "it" - the "it" being that intangible quality of gravitas, trust and authority. She's a feature reporter at heart and it still shows through. Compare her performance and ratings with ABC's Diane Sawyer. Diane consistently beats her soundly despite not being the anchor for nearly as long a period of time.

And, Brian Williams clobbers them both. But Brian Williams is, on a performance level, the best of the three - so I suppose that's what one would expect.

Couric has never worked out well for CBS and I am surprised that she has lasted as long as she has. The main headache for them may well be figuring out who to replace her with. And, gutting their news division really won't help them to be back in the #1 slot.

Someone noted that the evening news isn't really a profit center and is more of a prestige thing (in so many words). Though there is some truth to that, there's a limit to how much blood any given network is willing to give. Yes, being perceived as a leader at times of big news can do wonders for your credibility and overall ratings - but those days are numbered thanks to those 24/7 cable channels.

Let's just say that it will be interesting to see what happens from here. But one thing is clear, audiences aren't particularly enthralled with Couric. CBS has lost a significant share since she took over for Dan Rather and it's been a continuing slide - in share and in raw numbers. That can't be allowed to continue forever.

 

[jal41]

There is no FCC requirement to run news.

TV News isn't going anywhere. Whether CBS/ABC/NBC keep on doing the 6:30 half-hour newscast is in doubt, though.

The FCC only has a public affairs requirement...which, by my understanding can easily be addressed with public affairs programming if a station does not carry news. WXIA/Atlanta, for example, could make a better case for meeting this requirement with their news format, but other stations would need dedicated PA programming. I do not know the exact rules, so if someone who does would chime in...

The network newscasts are dying. CBS has never recovered from installing Katie Couric as lead anchor. ABC has held on with Diane Sawyer, and NBC in the lead with Brian Williams.

Yes...they do need to replace Katie Couric. No...Katie will not be going back to the Today Show (Whether Meredith Viera stays at Today will be a seperate matter, but Katie will not replace Meredith). Most likely, Katie will either land on syndication as a talk host, or on CNN as a news anchor (no...not replacing Anderson Cooper or anybody else...but as an anchor of a 6 PM or 7 PM news hour modeled after the network newscasts).

The CBS/CNN news sharing idea (not a full-blown merger) is probably where they need to go. Turning off cell phone service on Blackberries will only make things worse. I know the union issues are there...but if CBS still retains a seperate news department, and CNN only provides select content (limited at first, but would grow over time).

Keep in mind Fox (not a full-service network) has gotten by with no news (which I am glad of...for obvious reasons). I wonder how a full-service network like CBS could get along with no news.

And remember...CBS News is NOT good news.

 

[TheBigA]

CBS has never recovered from installing Katie Couric as lead anchor.

You make it sound as though CBS had higher ratings with Dan Rather. This isn't true. For most of the 90s, Rather's CBS News was in 3rd place. He was also in 3rd place when he was forced to retire. So the problem isn't Katie Couric, and if she leaves, it won't help CBS News.

The myth of CBS News as a journalistic and ratings force really hasn't existed in 35 years. Some of it has to do with budget cuts. But the real culpret is the Evening News itself. That one show simply isn't enough to build a powerhouse news department around. The other networks have cable channels or other daily program vehicles. CBS News has the Evening News, the Early Show, 60 Minutes, Sunday Morning, and 48 Hours. They need more real estate if they're going to build a more towering news structure. That's where CNN comes in.

 

[Tim-In-Houston]

The myth of CBS News as a journalistic and ratings force really hasn't existed in 35 years. Some of it has to do with budget cuts. But the real culpret is the Evening News itself. That one show simply isn't enough to build a powerhouse news department around. The other networks have cable channels or other daily program vehicles. CBS News has the Evening News, the Early Show, 60 Minutes, Sunday Morning, and 48 Hours. They need more real estate if they're going to build a more towering news structure. That's where CNN comes in.

NBC is the only broadcast network with a complementary cable news channel. AFAIK, no ABC News programming airs on the Disney-owned cable channels.

As for CBS, you're right: not since Cronkite left (and perhaps the first couple years of Rather's tenure) has CBS had a powerhouse evening newscast. The problem is, once that newscast withered they were left with only "60 Minutes" as a major revenue generator. Neither the many incarnations of their morning program nor the myriad other primetime newsmagazines have generated anywhere near the revenue that program has and does.

Unfortunately, I think, it was really Roone Arledge at ABC that layed the groundwork for the present-day state of affairs at the broadcast network news divisions. For all his many talents, he got the news presidency on the premise that news could be a revenue generator and set out to ensure that it was and did - prior to that the networks used it basically as a tax write-off as part of their "public service" obligation.

ABC was terribly understaffed when he set out that vision and, despite (or perhaps because of) his lavish spending in the early years, it turned a profit. Soon, the other two were ordered to follow suit and they, being terribly overstaffed, found the the only way they could do so was to cut-cut-cut (especially at CBS). Of course, Arledge's lavish spending eventually caught up to him - and his successor - and ABC has gone through their own round of cut backs in the last several years.

 

[TheBigA]

NBC is the only broadcast network with a complementary cable news channel. AFAIK, no ABC News programming airs on the Disney-owned cable channels.

Well, there IS ABC News Now, which is a 24 hour operation.

But my point was not to compare it to the other networks, but to say that if CBS is to build a leadership position in news, it needs to have a bigger footprint than the others. Right now, it does not. A merger with CNN will help, although CNN has problems of its own. But it certainly has a huge international footprint, and has found ways to market news and news coverage in very unique ways.

 

[imhomerjay]

Well, there IS ABC News Now, which is a 24 hour operation.

Which about two people know exists. ABC got into the number two slot sans the New Now effort, and with little difference in footprint. 20/20 occupies the same quantity of airtime as 60 Minutes (and that may be about all they have in common). For a time they had PrimeTime (not the current summertime progeny about crime, family secrets and the like), but that would have occupied roughly the same airtime as 48 Hours, which continues today, albeit on Saturdays. That leaves ABC's footprint larger mostly in having Nightline. Valuable, yes, but enough to account for that huge a difference? Doubtful.

A merger with CNN will help, although CNN has problems of its own. But it certainly has a huge international footprint, and has found ways to market news and news coverage in very unique ways.

Insomuch as not being able to go lower than third place, such an arrangement would seem to have a relatively small downside risk for CBS, though the upside potential seems at best to be a question mark. Even if it's a wash ratings wise, the cost savings might make it a win.

 

[TheBigA]

Valuable, yes, but enough to account for that huge a difference? Doubtful.

Once again, my point isn't to become #2 or to compare it to the other networks, but to achieve a LEADERSHIP position in news, which obviously goes beyond the nightly half hour broadcast. Being first or last with a show that at best will be seen by 3% of the population isn't my idea of leadership.

Insomuch as not being able to go lower than third place, such an arrangement would seem to have a relatively small downside risk for CBS, though the upside potential seems at best to be a question mark.

Cost savings doesn't matter unless you use that savings to build something else. So yes, you save money in gathering content for the evening news, which isn't a growth area to begin with. But you reinvest that savings in re-building the brand of CBS News with the CNN platform and other new platforms. It's about creating the future. That's what leadership means.

 

[radiolives]

If the CBS News and CNN merger happened I hope they would turn HN into what it once was. Possible could be done if CBS came into play. Headline news can partern with local CBS stations in markets etc.

 

[sandiegoinexile]

If the CBS News and CNN merger happened I hope they would turn HN into what it once was. Possible could be done if CBS came into play. Headline news can partern with local CBS stations in markets etc.

I wouldn't hold my breath expecting a return of "old-style" HN. That ship has sailed. There is no market for a constant, repetitive cycle of "news". That slot on the cable dial is much more valuable with an advertiser-friendly format. The "all-news, all-the-time" format thrives in only a handful of major market cities on radio. On TV, it's snoozeville.

As it stands now, the first 13 minutes or so of KatieNews is basically a solid, 100% newsy roundup of the top 5 or so major stories, with traditional, taped pieces from key correspondents. That 13-minute "wheel" is as close to "old HN" you will ever get.

After the first commercial break, there's one more Major Story and a couple more headlines. Then another 2+ minute commercial break, after which Katie does 45- to 85-seconds, speaking a couple sentences about 3-4 newsy items, often keyed to video snippets that are cutesy or you-tube-y. Then after the final commercial break is the General Interest Barely Newsworthy Story that could hae been taped anywhere from 2 to 30 days ago since it's feature-ish and not usually tied to any Big Event. During summer, they actually RE-RUN (gasp!) feature stories as "encores". That in itself, is criminal.

 

[mescutia]

CBS has lost a significant share since she took over for Dan Rather...

I thought she took over for Bob Schiefer.

 

[BRNout]

CBS has never recovered from installing Katie Couric as lead anchor.

You make it sound as though CBS had higher ratings with Dan Rather. This isn't true. For most of the 90s, Rather's CBS News was in 3rd place. He was also in 3rd place when he was forced to retire. So the problem isn't Katie Couric, and if she leaves, it won't help CBS News.

Third place yes, but they were also not as far behind the other two network newscasts with Rather as they are with Couric. Dan would sneak them into number 2 for a week once in a while (not that I cared for him; I didn't). Katie, on the other hand, has resulted in CBS being an also-ran that is never competitive.

The myth of CBS News as a journalistic and ratings force really hasn't existed in 35 years. Some of it has to do with budget cuts. But the real culpret is the Evening News itself. That one show simply isn't enough to build a powerhouse news department around. The other networks have cable channels or other daily program vehicles. CBS News has the Evening News, the Early Show, 60 Minutes, Sunday Morning, and 48 Hours. They need more real estate if they're going to build a more towering news structure. That's where CNN comes in.

There's certainly some truth here and it's getting worse with additional cuts. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, CBS skimps on its news department because it's not bringing in the ratings and the ratings drop further. This actually happens at their O&O's too.

CBS has lost a significant share since she took over for Dan Rather...

I thought she took over for Bob Schiefer.

Quite true, I stand corrected.