I've been trying to watch the Today Show for the past few months and am amazed the hype that NBC is giving to Savannah Guthrie in trying to make her appear as a serious, articulate morning personality. When the bombings occurred in Boston they sent poor Matt to Texas and Guthrie was suppose to "carry the load" for the network. They hype her at every station promo, giggle and make over her recent engagement, and run segments on how everyone in the show gets along so well. I'm sure she is a very sweet gal. My daughter has met her and claims she is very nice. But come on folks, she appears about as deep as a Walmart birdbath. I can't believe they canned Ann Curry for this gal. What were they thinking?
-
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
Is There Anything NBC Won't Do To Showcase Savannah Guthrie?
- Thread starter FRR
- Start date
The current lineup on the CBS Morning News is the best they've ever had, although Harry Smith got a raw deal. They seem more like the Today show in the Hugh Downs/Barbara Walters days.
Ms. Guthrie seems like a nice person.
They are trying to re-create Katie. She is an definite improvement over Ann Curry.
I must disagree. Rose is very good, but I don't think Gayle King adds much value.
Norah O'Donnell has a perpetual sneer and projects an attitude of 'I'm SOOOOO much smarter than you'
I think the ratings have fallen since they dropped Erica Hill whose been a nice addition to Weekend Today.
They are trying to re-create Katie. She is an definite improvement over Ann Curry.
I must disagree. Rose is very good, but I don't think Gayle King adds much value.
Norah O'Donnell has a perpetual sneer and projects an attitude of 'I'm SOOOOO much smarter than you'
I think the ratings have fallen since they dropped Erica Hill whose been a nice addition to Weekend Today.
FRR said:
I hope she does have a job to fall back on just in case NBC decides to revamp "Today" entirely, which I think will happen sometime this year. I believe this is the only way they can save the once-unstoppable franchise that has been eclipsed by "GMA" and local morning news/fluff shows across the country. Ann Curry loyalists will never warm up to Guthrie, and Matt's on his final legs with the program.
But then again, this is NBC/Comcast we're talking about.
M
Mario500
Guest
I would only watch "CBS This Morning" (the correct name of the news program with Charlie Rose, Gayle King, and Norah O'Donnell) on a regular basis if only I could trust the news division of CBS for providing news and information without personal feelings from news presenters and reporters and for treating all people connected to their news stories fairly (for example, they should treat all of the candidates of a presidential race fairly unlike the candidates for the last presidential race in the United States).
(note: "The CBS Morning News" is the name of the news program that usually preceded local newscasts produced by CBS stations)
(note: "The CBS Morning News" is the name of the news program that usually preceded local newscasts produced by CBS stations)
I would say yes, Gayle King had qualifications.
She had worked on television as an anchor previously and had connections to allow the show to get guests they otherwise might not have gotten.
Certainly her relationship with Oprah Winfrey was the deciding factor, but she has talent in her own right.
I'm just not very fond of her.
She had worked on television as an anchor previously and had connections to allow the show to get guests they otherwise might not have gotten.
Certainly her relationship with Oprah Winfrey was the deciding factor, but she has talent in her own right.
I'm just not very fond of her.
I'm surprised that we are questioning Gayle King's qualifications. If you look at morning television, you see a lot of people without a "huge" journalistic resume. Gayle King has been a NEWS anchor, not just an "interviewer".
Certainly, she is just as qualified as many of the other morning show hosts.
As for "CBS This Morning", I like its focus on news.
Certainly, she is just as qualified as many of the other morning show hosts.
As for "CBS This Morning", I like its focus on news.
That's saying a bit much. Morning news is cyclical. Today was unstoppable for years, then GMA was a juggernaut for a while, then Today ruled again, and now GMA is on top again. Today will rise again unless NBC tanks the whole network (don't rule this out, by the way).Eric Stein said:
formeraa said:
Morning network "news" shows have a long history of hosts who haven't the slightest background in news or journalism. Gary Collins and David Hartman come to mind dating back to the 1970's, but I'm sure there are others. I certainly would not single out Ms. King in this regard, especially not if her resume does include some involvement with broadcast news as claimed above.
I agree that of the three legacy network morning shows CBS has by far the least amount of gossip and fluff; as a result it's the only legacy network morning program I can even stand to watch. However, I also agree with the previous poster who laments CBS' fundamental inability to report news objectively, without the bias which they swear doesn't exist. CBS is far from alone in this regard, and not the worst of the pack. At least they haven't put a former Clinton administration flunky behind their anchor desk.
The people complaining about CBS's "bias" are the reason why you don't see more hard news in the morning; you'll complain about that too. You might as well abandon the broadcast morning shows and turn on Fox and Friends. Sure, it's as airheaded as Today or GMA, but at least it's in the spot on the ideological spectrum you want.
SixtiesGuy said:
There's a lot of truth in that statement that morning shows hire hosts without a news background, and you can go all the way back to the '50s and '60s: Dave Garroway was a disc jockey in Chicago who'd hosted an early NBC variety show, "Garroway At Large," in the late '40s (however, the "Today Show" was conceived as an entertainment program as much as a news program); Hugh Downs was best known as host of "Concentration" and as Jack Paar's announcer/sidekick (Paar also hosted CBS's morning show at one time); Betsy Palmer was once what at the time called a "Today girl," before Barbara Walters brought legitimate journalism from the female side; even Dick Van Dyke hosted CBS's morning show for a time in the '50s. And even Walter Cronkite did these shows, but was clearly uncomfortable doing things like comedy routines witb the Bil Baird puppets. But those shows were, as I said, conceived as entertainment shows; by the '70s only "Good Morning America" was produced by its network's entertainment department (hence David Hartman as host), and even it was eventually taken over by the ABC News department. And ABC and NBC, at least, have always operated under the assumption that viewers don't want a steady dose of bad news at 7 AM (even if they've had to report plenty); CBS is still, IMO, tied to the Murrow/Cronkite tradition that disdains fluff; Scott Pelley has less fluff in the evening than do Diane Sawyer or Brian Williams.
Yet I'm not sure Charlie Rose qualifies as a legitimate journalist; I remember when he had a Donahue-style syndicated talk show, back around 1980. He does, though, come across as a serious newsperson. There are two other people who, if they were a bit younger, I would nominate as good morning-show hosts, even with game shows on their resumes: Nick Clooney and Dennis Wholey. Both are really serious when it comes to reporting and interviewing (Clooney dominated Cincinnati news until WLWT hired one Jerry Springer, and Wholey's talk show became a staple on PBS).
At least, when Matt Lauer goes, I hope NBC will put somebody with news experience in his slot; knowing NBC right now, they're just liable to go out and get a "Saturday Night Live" alumnus.
Morgan Wick said:
And, in part this has to do with the personalities. GMA's team seems to have the right chemistry right now, while Today not so much. And, I don't think Ms. Guthrie's presence is going to lead them back to number one. They may have a chance if they could let Mr. Lauer go and try to persuade Meredith Vieira back into the seat Guthrie currently sits in.
joebtsflk1 said:
I wholeheartedly agree that the CBS Morning Program offers more ‘hard news’ compared to NBC and ABC. This is one reason that I watch Charlie Rose & Company compared to the other two shows.
Also I managed to convince my wife to stop watching ABC World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer and we now watch Scott Pelley and the CBS Evening News.
As a former newscaster/reporter I want the news period; not some anchor who feels the need to make cutie-pie comments after each story as Ms. Sawyer enjoys doing.
With regards to the Savannah Guthrie/Ann Curry controversy; personally I think Ann got the short end of the stick. Despite being paid a reported $10 million dollars a year, I think NBC holding Curry to her contract and not allowing her to go to another network (reportedly CNN) just isn't fair. But then who said life is fair?
umfan said:
Hate to say I told you so but last year when Nora O'Donnell was substituting for Erica Hill I predicted that CBS was auditioning O’Donnell to move into that co-anchor chair and that Hill’s future on that morning show was coming to an end. My prediction proved true.
If you remember Ms. Hill apparently knew her days at CBS were numbered because she was far from the cheery person that she is now on the weekend version of the “Today Show.”
Not to come across as being a sexist individual but we all know that looks count on television. And while Ms. Hill is an attractive looking person, Ms. O’Donnell also has the looks for TV. Plus I believe that CBS executives felt that Ms. O’Donnell was better known to the television viewing audience from her years at NBC which lead to her replacing Erica Hill.
Another hypothesis on my part is that I bet when CBS was attempting to lure O’Donnell away from NBC it was with the promise that she would end up anchoring a news program.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Both the Today Show and Good Morning, America were not originally produced by their respective networks' news divisions. They were entertainment shows that also included news. NBC had a chimp. CBS had puppets. The hosts were hired as personalities who could ad lib, be likeable at an early hour, sell the sponsors' products (the hosts used to do live commercials) and chat with guests. The original program concepts for Today and Tonight were not that different. Early on, Tonight had news breaks just like Today (and interviews with authors and politicians, just like Today).
So, "personalities" like Dave Garroway, Dick Van Dyke, Will Rogers, Jr., Hugh Downs (host of Concentration), David Hartmann (TV doctor), Nancy Dussault (Too Close for Comfort), Florence Henderson (Carol Brady), Lee Meriwether (Miss America) and Estelle Parsons were considered well-suited and well-qualified for morning television. Their resumes would seem better even today than reading local news off a TelePrompTer.
Hosts don't do booking, so "contacts" (if any) don't matter.
The real reason NBC and ABC moved their morning shows over to the news division was money. These shows in the news division makes the news divisions profitable. They support the actual news programs.
Maybe these shows would do better if they went back to hiring "personalities." Seacrest, Bergeron, Probst, any of them would be better than Matt. Regis would be better than Matt.
Current resumes: Lauer, host of Evening Magazine in Philly. Stephanopoulis: Dukakis' and Clintons' campaign manager.
CBS' problem in the morning is they keep rounding up the usual suspects. They have a panel of semi-regulars that they go back to again and again. The former cop. The hero airline pilot. The back-up White House correspondent who has to pull early duty. ... I see very little of the Charlie Rose style of interviewing on CBS in the morning. For that you have to stay up late and watch PBS. Besides, CBS really does two morning shows (using the same set). One hour for The Charlie Rose Show and one hour for the Gayle King Show.
And the real reason Gayle King was hired and stays hired is racial tokenism and affirmative action.
So, "personalities" like Dave Garroway, Dick Van Dyke, Will Rogers, Jr., Hugh Downs (host of Concentration), David Hartmann (TV doctor), Nancy Dussault (Too Close for Comfort), Florence Henderson (Carol Brady), Lee Meriwether (Miss America) and Estelle Parsons were considered well-suited and well-qualified for morning television. Their resumes would seem better even today than reading local news off a TelePrompTer.
Hosts don't do booking, so "contacts" (if any) don't matter.
The real reason NBC and ABC moved their morning shows over to the news division was money. These shows in the news division makes the news divisions profitable. They support the actual news programs.
Maybe these shows would do better if they went back to hiring "personalities." Seacrest, Bergeron, Probst, any of them would be better than Matt. Regis would be better than Matt.
Current resumes: Lauer, host of Evening Magazine in Philly. Stephanopoulis: Dukakis' and Clintons' campaign manager.
CBS' problem in the morning is they keep rounding up the usual suspects. They have a panel of semi-regulars that they go back to again and again. The former cop. The hero airline pilot. The back-up White House correspondent who has to pull early duty. ... I see very little of the Charlie Rose style of interviewing on CBS in the morning. For that you have to stay up late and watch PBS. Besides, CBS really does two morning shows (using the same set). One hour for The Charlie Rose Show and one hour for the Gayle King Show.
And the real reason Gayle King was hired and stays hired is racial tokenism and affirmative action.
- Status