"Implosion" At CBS News?

[TheBigA]

Katie, on the other hand, has resulted in CBS being an also-ran that is never competitive.

So what? Quite often Letterman is in third place too. No one's calling for him to get fired.

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.

You make it sound like spending money leads to increased ratings. That is not the case. I once saw the news budgets of the three networks and they're surprisingly similar. It's not how much you spend, but what you do with the money that matters.

 

[BRNout]

Katie, on the other hand, has resulted in CBS being an also-ran that is never competitive.

So what? Quite often Letterman is in third place too. No one's calling for him to get fired.

Still no comparison. Late Show is 0.1 rating point behind Leno and Nightline. Not to mention that CBS Evening News basically showcases an entire division of the company while Letterman is a single show. An important show, yes; but still just one entertainment show. And it's still more competitive than Evening News has been since Katie's first week.

Come on, I don't get how you cannot see the obvious when it comes to this issue. Couric is a lead/Pb anchor who is accelerating the sinking of an already listing ship.

You make it sound like spending money leads to increased ratings. That is not the case. I once saw the news budgets of the three networks and they're surprisingly similar. It's not how much you spend, but what you do with the money that matters.

True that. But CBS has gutted staff and fired the kinds of people that give you depth. In part to pay Couric's salary. Frankly, none of the big 3 nets have immune to this - but it seems that CBS has come the farthest downhill over the past 20 years. And, as I eluded to in my post earlier, the rot extends into their owned and operated affiliates, most of whom are at or near the rear when it comes to local news ratings. Go back into the mid 80s and most of those same stations were ratings (and prestige) leaders in their respective markets.

 

[TheBigA]

Still no comparison. Late Show is 0.1 rating point behind Leno and Nightline. Not to mention that CBS Evening News basically showcases an entire division of the company while Letterman is a single show.

Late Night is a division. Letterman is the centerpiece. My point is the mistake is making an evening news cast as the showcase of the division. It's not that people don't watch CBS News. They just don't watch it as much as the others in the evening. They watch it Sunday nights. And it's not a function of Katie, because it's always been a loser. Just as the morning show has always been a loser, but not because of Harry Smith.

True that. But CBS has gutted staff and fired the kinds of people that give you depth. In part to pay Couric's salary.

Do you know that for a fact? Are you privvy to their budget figures? Couric's salary is spread around a number of shows, not just one. Once again, it's not about money. It's what you do with the money, and they make good use of their anchor.

As far as depth, they have Bill Plante, who was once the lead White House reporter, doing second string. That's not bad.

And, as I eluded to in my post earlier, the rot extends into their owned and operated affiliates, most of whom are at or near the rear when it comes to local news ratings. Go back into the mid 80s and most of those same stations were ratings (and prestige) leaders in their respective markets.

Not WCBS in New York. It's always been a dog. But as one who's studied the way the company works, there is no connection between the employees in the network news division and those at local. And no connection between managements. They are run mostly as very separate companies, all the way up to the chairman level.

 

[vchimpanzee]

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.

Plus Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters and Meredith Vieira are the only females I can think of who would seem like the voice of authority in a crisis. Katie just seems cutesy.

 

[landtuna]

CBS News has the Evening News, the Early Show, 60 Minutes, Sunday Morning, and 48 Hours.

Sunday Morning, aside from the 1-2 minute intro, is a features magazine, not news.

 

[TheBigA]

CBS News has the Evening News, the Early Show, 60 Minutes, Sunday Morning, and 48 Hours.

Sunday Morning, aside from the 1-2 minute intro, is a features magazine, not news.

However it is produced by CBS News.

 

[Bengalsfan]

CBS News has the Evening News, the Early Show, 60 Minutes, Sunday Morning, and 48 Hours.

Sunday Morning, aside from the 1-2 minute intro, is a features magazine, not news.

However it is produced by CBS News.

And about the only thing worth watching coming out of Black Rock anymore.

 

[landtuna]

CBS News has the Evening News, the Early Show, 60 Minutes, Sunday Morning, and 48 Hours.

Sunday Morning, aside from the 1-2 minute intro, is a features magazine, not news.

However it is produced by CBS News.

Doesn't matter. Still not news.

 

[TheBigA]

And about the only thing worth watching coming out of 30 Rock anymore.

Except it doesn't come out of 30 Rock.

Doesn't matter. Still not news.

Says you.

 

[Bengalsfan]

Doesn't matter. Still not news.

Says you.

Are you really this obtuse or is this an act?

On Sunday Morning's own website, they call themselves a "features" show. In case you really are this gauche I'll explain it to you. A "features" show means they don't cover hard news and the stories they do broadcast they go more in depth on.

 

[landtuna]

Says you.

You seem to be a "majority" of 1.

Sunday Morning is a news magazine, not current news. Virtually every one of their segments is at least one week old and most are not anywhere near current. That is the definition of news magazine.

Of course, reporting the five-year anniversary of Katrina isn't real news either but all three network news shows did segments so maybe "news" isn't news either.

A monkey with a banana could produce Sunday Morning and it still wouldn't be news.

 

[TheBigA]

You seem to be a "majority" of 1.

No, you're coming into the middle of a thread discussing the CBS News department, bringing up something off the topic.

Sunday Morning is produced by the CBS News division. That's what we're talking about here, and that is the context of the discussion. Whether or not you think it's news isn't related to this thread.

 

[landtuna]

No, you're coming into the middle of a thread discussing the CBS News department, bringing up something off the topic.

Sunday Morning is produced by the CBS News division. That's what we're talking about here, and that is the context of the discussion. Whether or not you think it's news isn't related to this thread.

The thread is discussing CBS Evening News and its fall from grace. You raised the fact that there are a number of programs produced by CBS News and I quote "CBS News has the Evening News, the Early Show, 60 Minutes, Sunday Morning, and 48 Hours."

I said simply that Sunday Morning is a news magazine and not a news program and should not be listed with the others. And, except for small segments dealing with actual news, The Early Show should not be considered a news program either since the vast majority of its segments are not news-related (unless you feel a new way to cook tacos is somehow current news).

Whether the same people from CBS News are working on some or all of the above shows is immaterial to the show's format.

 

[TheBigA]

So what? NBC News produces Today and a lot of other featury shows. Nightline hasn't been a strictly news show since Koppel left. NPR News produces Morning Edition as a news show, and there are lots of feature and entertainment stories in it. This is a non-story. The FCC doesn't care. The public doesn't care. And no one's keeping score.

 

[imhomerjay]

"News" needn't always be a rapid-fire summary of what happened in the last X hours. It can include features, more in-depth reporting and, yes, less serious pieces. "News" isn't a one-size-fits-all approach.

 

[LKellerIII]

The thread is discussing CBS Evening News and its fall from grace...

And to get back to the main topic: in terms of status - CBS "fell from grace" a couple of decades ago. Walter Cronkite retired 29 years ago. By the mid 1970s, people were bemoaning the virtual abandonment by the network of those incredible CBS Reports (Hunger in America, Harvest of Shame, etc.)

Since then, CBS has - for the most part - been no better or worse, on balance, than the other 2 original networks. No doubt most people would agree that 60 Minutes is the best news magazine on television, and has been for 40 plus years. But the other networks have had some high status news programs too - notably Nightline under Ted Koppel. NBC News Overnight comes to mind as a noble experiment. I'm sure I could think of a few others if I had some time. But the point is, TV news has not been primarily about CBS for a long time now.

Rather's ratings were deteriorating 2 decades ago. As great as that network live coverage was (elections, space launches, etc.) - we have three 24/7 cable news networks covering that territory now, too. We don't need the Big 3 for those events anymore.

In my opinion, to say that CBS News is "imploding" because Katie Couric is number 3 - is exaggerated hyperbole, at best. Personally, I never understood why people dislike Couric as an anchor. I think she's decent. But do I ever watch her on the Evening News? - Rarely - and I rarely watch the NBC Nightly News or ABC World News, either. Like most Americans, I'm busy at that hour.

These days, I listen to NPR in the mornings and afternoons, and get my mid-day and late night news fixes online. It's a new world.

 

[landtuna]

"News" needn't always be a rapid-fire summary of what happened in the last X hours. It can include features, more in-depth reporting and, yes, less serious pieces. "News" isn't a one-size-fits-all approach.

But "news", traditionally has been current events - including timely follow-on reporting of longer-lasting current events. Example: the circus is coming to town.

"News" isn't what the industry calls "features". Example: an in-depth report on circus performers.

And fluff isn't news either despite the attempts of the happy news folks to shove it down our throats.

Back in the 50's the standard for TV news was set by a number of professional journalists and reporters. That standard hasn't changed despite the tendency of modern news organizations to present "infotainment" or mere headlines posing as news.

 

[imhomerjay]

Bwahhh-hah, we're back to the 1950's standard. I checked my calendar, and that period ended quite some time ago. Considering one definition is "a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment," yeah, things that are less timely--trend stories or lifestyle pieces--meet that definition.

"News" is as much about what the audience needs it to be as some ancient rose-colored-glasses myth of what was once so vastly superior.

And to get back to the main topic: in terms of status - CBS "fell from grace" a couple of decades ago. Walter Cronkite retired 29 years ago. By the mid 1970s, people were bemoaning the virtual abandonment by the network of those incredible CBS Reports (Hunger in America, Harvest of Shame, etc.)

[\quote]
And if they ran those today, we'd hear the predictable howling that it's all nothing but bias. We need to hear from the flat-Earthers that there really isn't hunger, because instead of actual accuracy, what they seem to crave--nay, demand--is that credibility be given to any assertion in the name of "balance." Unless it's a "lefty" idea.

 

[TheBigA]

And to get back to the main topic: in terms of status - CBS "fell from grace" a couple of decades ago. Walter Cronkite retired 29 years ago. By the mid 1970s, people were bemoaning the virtual abandonment by the network of those incredible CBS Reports (Hunger in America, Harvest of Shame, etc.)

But keep in mind that that coincided with the establishment of CNN in 1980 as the first 24/7 news channel. The CBS Reports specials ended because, to be honest, no one watched. The world was changing then, and they knew they had to reinvent themselves. And it wasn't just "CBS fell from grace," but what happened in the 70s in that ABC became a bigger player in news. Roone Arledge changed the style of news with better graphics and quicker pacing. Meanwhile, CBS was trying to hold the line on its tradition. That tradition became tired and dated. A few years of being blown away, and all those folks who created shows like CBS Reports were gone. You can't get stale or complacent, because someone else is going to come along and run past you.

These days, I listen to NPR in the mornings and afternoons, and get my mid-day and late night news fixes online. It's a new world.

Which is why I say that judging a company's news product by the ratings on its evening news is useless. These companies are moving into other things. CBS produces documentaries for the Discovery and History channels. So does NBC. That's where you'll see that kind of programming...IF you're interested.

 

[landtuna]

Bwahhh-hah, we're back to the 1950's standard.

Glad you agree.

Considering one definition is "a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment," yeah, things that are less timely--trend stories or lifestyle pieces--meet that definition.

Both me and my old journalism professor would disagree vehemently. News is a story of what, when, why AND of current interest and importance to the general audience. Lifestyle pieces may be of interest but don't qualify as current interest and importance.

"News" is as much about what the audience needs it to be as some ancient rose-colored-glasses myth of what was once so vastly superior.

Don't denigrate the past. It set the standard. Something that will never be said about the present.

And to get back to the main topic: in terms of status - CBS "fell from grace" a couple of decades ago. Walter Cronkite retired 29 years ago. By the mid 1970s, people were bemoaning the virtual abandonment by the network of those incredible CBS Reports (Hunger in America, Harvest of Shame, etc.)

[\quote]
And if they ran those today, we'd hear the predictable howling that it's all nothing but bias. We need to hear from the flat-Earthers that there really isn't hunger, because instead of actual accuracy, what they seem to crave--nay, demand--is that credibility be given to any assertion in the name of "balance." Unless it's a "lefty" idea.