It's Not Really Katie's Fault; Put The Evening News Out of its Misery

[fred flintstone]

When will CBS (and the other two network news divisions) have the cajones to admit what has been obvious for more than decade?

The era of dinner hour network newscasts has passed. The concept is obsolete.

We have network news because originally...

• Many stations did not have the resources to mount a professional news broadcast.
• Available technology made it difficult, cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive to get live, filmed or taped reports and stories to stations directly.
• The dinner hour news programs were the only national news services available for television.

That's all changed.

• Cable news channels are available 24/7.
• Local stations have access to national and international reports, stories and pictures comparable to what is available to the producers of the network news broadcasts.
• The networks operate video news services for local stations, as do CNN and other, and local stations have the stories and pictures before the network broadcasts.
• Local stations often do two or three hours of news themselves before airing the network news. The station has already run reports on major out-of-area stories before their audience sees the network news.

The network news is redundant and superfluous.

There's a reason the only audience that is left is geezers, who keep watching out of habit.

The only reason these broadcasts continue is because the news division won't let go of them - more accurately, none wants to be first to let go of them.

The failure of the re-packaged CBS Evening News is not Katie's fault. A new wrapping won't sell an obsolete product. Nor will a new advertising slogan.

The CBS Evening News has had a 58 year run (add 10 more years for The World Tonight on radio). Let It Go. It's over.

 

[BRNout]

Geez, for once I agree wholeheartedly with Fred!! The evening news programs are an anachronism - much like the evening paper. A quaint concept, but one that no longer fits into people's lives.

This is not to say that the network news divisions are unnecessary - far from it, I think that they just need to do their work utilizing different platforms. Although NBC has really done a sloppy job with MSNBC and CNBC, that's no reason why CBS and ABC couldn't think about doing a 24-hour news channel. It could be broadcast on affiliate digital subchannels and it would provide programming for prime time news-based network programming, big stories (like today's incident in NY), and to give the public their news fix - when they want it.

Combine it with the internet, make it news (not opinion talk like what's on cable now), do it well and it will be a success. But, the evening shows are obsolete. Anyone under the age of 65 now expects to obtain the news when they want it and not at a prescribed time.

CBS and ABC should look at this model. NBC should too, but its clear that they are going in the opposite direction with MSNBC. And, that channel is a lousy place to get news now - it's not live as often as Fox or CNN, nor do they cover as much actual news. And, they are permanently #3 in a 3 horse race.

 

[KeithE4]

When will CBS (and the other two network news divisions) have the cajones to admit what has been obvious for more than decade?
.
.
.
The network news is redundant and superfluous.

Don't forget old (up to 2 hours delayed) when aired in the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

There's a reason the only audience that is left is geezers, who keep watching out of habit.

The only reason these broadcasts continue is because the news division won't let go of them - more accurately, none wants to be first to let go of them.

There's still some prestige involved here. The evening news anchors are still considered to be the top people in the American news business, both by viewers and advertisers from what I hear.

The failure of the re-packaged CBS Evening News is not Katie's fault. A new wrapping won't sell an obsolete product. Nor will a new advertising slogan.

The CBS Evening News has had a 58 year run (add 10 more years for The World Tonight on radio). Let It Go. It's over.

I don't know if the networks would want to operate a 24-hour newsroom and have it carried on their affiliates' digital subchannels. Would it be profitable, either for the networks or the affiliates?

 

[Markxxx]

I would take exception with your logic. Many millions of people don't have access to cable or dish. Why on earth would you want to say, let's not inform them.

Sure you could make the assumption that local news would pick up the slack, but that is doubtful. In Chicago our local news in the evening has gone the way of light news and high hearted feel good stories.

Radio in Chicago is useless and while the internet is available it is so biased that unless you have some intellect you can't figure out the facts from sites that exist expressly to misinform people.

I do research and I was shocked to learn that facts on HIV for instance at the CDC website were out of date. When I contact them they said, "Yes we haven't got around to updating it yet."

A huge problem with TV is simply there is no incentive for anything but what makes a profit. Because you can air commercial after commercial they will and people will watch.

The news used to be about the news. Now it's about what pulls in the rating. I find it disgraceful that all our stories on local news are the same. They just put it in a different order. I think it's a shame that jounalists never ask tough questions for fear of offending someone.

But you can't simply quit, because if you do these people will not turn to other sources they will simply stay misinformed. I know I spend a lot of time on my job, and I am hired by major corporations to explain simple things because a majority of their high paid staff simply can't understand where does the world go when you shut the draps.

 

[KeithE4]

I would take exception with your logic. Many millions of people don't have access to cable or dish. Why on earth would you want to say, let's not inform them.

Approximately 78% of American households with TV now have cable or satellite. This may sound a bit crass, but of the remaining 22%, many are poor and/or elderly and either can't afford or just don't want anything other than broadcast TV. Advertisers are trying to reach exactly neither of those demos so it doesn't matter to them.

Sure you could make the assumption that local news would pick up the slack, but that is doubtful. In Chicago our local news in the evening has gone the way of light news and high hearted feel good stories.

Just recently? WLS-TV's been like that since Eyewitness News debuted in 1968. ;D

 

[fred flintstone]

What Keith and BRN describe is pretty much what Fox is already doing.

Setting aside the question of whether you like Fox's "fair and balanced" approach, they....

• They have a news operation.
• They don't have an evening news program on their broadcast TV network.
• They have a news channel.
• They have closed circuit feeds to provide material for broadcast affiliates' news programs.
• They provide coverage on breaking news for broadcast affiliates.
• They do a Sunday morning interview show for broadcast affiliates.
• And they make money.

NBC already has a channel in place, as BRN points out. If they ever got their act together, they could be doing much the same as Fox.

ABC tried launching a headline news type channel in the early 80s but folded. They are making noises about a 24/7 channel patterned after their overnight network broadcast for both cable and a digital sub-channel, but they can't get their act together on that either. Problem with digital is if the network or local station wants to broadcast an HDTV program, it knocks out the digital sub-channel.

CBS has not even tried to launch its own news channel, although they have talked about it a time or two.

Still, it's not too late.

CBS (and the others) should:

• Make a 24/7 channel the center piece of on-going news coverage and continuous coverage on breaking stories (with bulletins and updates only on the broadcast network; TV affiliates could take continuous coverage from the cable news feed if they wished).
• Continue to produce programs like 60 Minutes for the broadcast network.
• Hang it up on the morning show and go back to letting local stations program local programs, with the news division providing material and content for stations to include in their own broadcasts.

Cable/satellite penetration is close to 90 per cent. If hold-outs want more complete news coverage than local TV offers, they can sign up (or read a newspaper, or listen to public radio, or go online). If they miss out on something generally available, it's their own fault. Besides, people who won't subscribe to cable/satellite, are probably not an audience attractive to advertisers. It's a loosing proposition to program something mainly for them.

But, bottom line, people are NOT watching the network news, not in the numbers that watch local news. The networks' response is to dumb down network news after the example of local news. Remember the networks operate their local stations in most major markets; the same company is responsible for both local and network broadcasts.

Somebody has to pay for news. In broadcast TV, it's advertisers. Advertisers pay the bills for newspapers and radio, too. Modern newspapers and modern journalism would not exist if not for advertisers. Mark, you say, news should not be about ratings (actually it's not; it's about ad sales but that's another topic). What you are advocating is news programs unconcerned about attracting an audience or communicating with an audience but somehow meeting YOUR ideas of quality. And you say it should be offered free on broadcast TV for people who don't want to pay for cable/satellite. Lotsa luck.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Isn't broadcast network news getting hugely better ratings than the cable "news" networks?

 

[KeithE4]

Isn't broadcast network news getting hugely better ratings than the cable "news" networks?

True, especially since they're opposite the bloviator commentary/interview programs starring Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and Larry King in a good part of the country (specifically, the west).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but local newscasts are getting higher ratings than the network news on the same channel in many markets. I wouldn't be surprised if local stations are getting upset at the ratings drop when Katie, Brian, and Charles come on, if this is the case.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Isn't broadcast network news getting hugely better ratings than the cable "news" networks?

True, especially since they're opposite the bloviator commentary/interview programs starring Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and Larry King in a good part of the country (specifically, the west).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but local newscasts are getting higher ratings than the network news on the same channel in many markets. I wouldn't be surprised if local stations are getting upset at the ratings drop when Katie, Brian, and Charles come on, if this is the case.

This despite being the most disrespected part of their lineups in many markets (I'm looking at YOU, Sin-clair), and arguably the starting point for a refocusing of television back on the local station. Too many station owners do news because they feel "obligated" to, or worse, purely on pressure from their networks. They should be doing it because they WANT to. And don't even get me started on taking over another channel and doing news for that.

Of course, making stations locally owned again would be a good place to start...

 

[fred flintstone]

Isn't broadcast network news getting hugely better ratings than the cable "news" networks?

Almost anything on broadcast TV gets better ratings than cable networks.
The question is can the networks get better ratings - more importantly, better demos - even more importantly, better sales revenue - by running something else in that time period (either an additional half hour of local news or syndicated programming).

The networks are loss leaders. The networks make most of their profits from local owned-station ad sales. Local news is the most profitable type of programming these companies have. Network news, with its geezer ads, is expensive and marginally profitable. Getting rid of the network evening news saves money and allows more air time for more profitable programming.

One arrangement might be that the network gets avails in local news programs in return for providing more stories, reports and special features for stations to use. The local news gets better demos and network sales can sell those spots for stations (those the network owns plus affiliates) to air at much better ad rates than it now receives for geezer network spots.

Once stations did news because they felt obliged to. They are no longer obliged to. They keep doing local news - and more of it - because it is the biggest money-maker they have.

 

[oldschooltv]

I have to disagree...

The network evening newscasts are still the best and only means by which to get a synopsis of latebreaking events happening across the country and world.

The cablenews channels are awful when it comes to this because I haven't been able to find truly "live" news on the cablenews channels in years. Instead, it's newsprogram after newsprogram with disgruntled hosts fighting their guests, and the occasional 60 second newsbrief every thirty minutes. This just doesn't cut it. And speaking of cablenews channels, one thing I hate is having to stare at a scroll!

The local newscasts (in markets where they exist) don't dedicate 30 minutes of national and world news - as the networks do.

The internet is a great resource if you want to simply catch the "headlines" - but it is not as captivating as a live, in-depth report.

I may not be able to watch the network evening news casts every night, due to personal time constraints. But when I am home, I almost always tune in. For the people who are able to watch and still watch, the network evening newscasts are a worthwhile service. Sometimes the benefits of such cannot and should not be measured.

 

[fred flintstone]

OldSchool: The network news divisions have been pushing for an hour long evening newscast ever since they went to a half hour. And from a strictly journalistic viewpoint, they may have a case.

If a network-affiliated cable channel were the news divisions' main vehicles, those chyannels would would change. Imagine the evening news - before it was dumbed down to its present state - and one hour long each night.

Right now, these "news channels" are really talk channels. CNN and Headline News used to be news channels. The others never were really.

I'm not saying the network news divisions should go out of business. I am saying they should display the product in a better location. And that's cable/satellite.

 

[BRNout]

Also, when talking about the cable vs. broadcast issue, remember that all new TV's will be digital compatable soon. So, looking 5-10 years down the road, most (if not all) of that 22% or so without cable WILL have access to digital subchannels. So, they too would be able to view a 24/7 news channel if one were implemented in the way that we're proposing.

Fred is absolutely right when it comes to the issue of audience numbers. If the platform changes, the old timers will adjust out of necessity. And, a REAL news channel will gain defectors from what is there now. Such a choice between the likes of Fox/CNN and an ABC/CBS news channel would be the TV equivalent of the big n/t radio station (like WABC, WPHT, WRKO, etc.) versus the all news one (think WINS/WCBS, KYW, WBZ, etc.). There's certainly room for both on a national scale.

But, the days of the evening news (at least in its present form) are numbered. There's no doubt about that. People want to get live news on their schedule and not wait until 6:30 pm for it. Especially if 6:30 is inconvenient (which it is for many).

 

[bpatrick]

OldSchool: The network news divisions have been pushing for an hour long evening newscast ever since they went to a half hour. And from a strictly journalistic viewpoint, they may have a case.

OK, New Yorkers, remember when your network newscasts aired at 7?
All it took was for WABC to put Jeopardy! at 7, move Peter Jennings to
6:30, watch the game show do a number on Brokaw and Rather, and now
all the network newscasts air at 6:30 in the Big Apple. And that particular
phenomenon also hit Los Angeles and Boston, as I recall (only it was Wheel
in Boston).

Last time I checked, only six affiliates had their network news at 7:
one ABC (WSB), one NBC (WRC), and four CBS (KDKA, WJZ, WRGB, and
WCAX). OTOH, there's a small but growing number of stations doing
local news at 7. In my part of the country alone, this is the case in
Roanoke/Lynchburg, Raleigh, Charlotte, Columbia and Charleston, SC
(two in each of those SC markets), and Atlanta. And there are other
places: D.C., Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville, Charleston/Huntington,
and I'm probably leaving out a few.

Also, how are the networks going to get their Central time zone
affiliates to give up their 6 PM local news?

I'm not putting any money on hour-long network news.

 

[fred flintstone]

I'm not putting any money on hour-long network news.

Neither am I. (Are you paying attention?)
Journalistic considerations don't count for much.

The news in many - if not most - large and major markets used to be on at 7 pm.
Before the network news went to a half hour, the local news was on at 7:00 (network news at 7:15).
Early on, the network news ran at 7:45pm.
The networks keep pushing the news back because they can make more money in fringe time with tabloid shows (or game shows). The tabloid shows are the REAL national newscasts today. Hire Mary Hart for the CBS Evening News? It would be a step down.

And the more they push the network news back, the less convenient it is for more people.

Dump Katie - bring back Bob - and do an hour-long CBS Evening News like Cronkite used to - and put it on cable/satellite - and do it at 7pm - maybe even 8 pm (counter-programming the "family" sitcoms).

 

[DoctorBear]

Dump Katie - bring back Bob - and do an hour-long CBS Evening News like Cronkite used to - and put it on cable/satellite - and do it at 7pm - maybe even 8 pm (counter-programming the "family" sitcoms).

When - other than a couple of big-story nights - did Cronkite do an hour-long newscast?

 

[fred flintstone]

He didn't. Do a hard news show like it was back then - only make it an hour long, as he wanted to.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Once stations did news because they felt obliged to. They are no longer obliged to. They keep doing local news - and more of it - because it is the biggest money-maker they have.

Evidently it isn't for Sinclair (and arguably Deathstar, er, Nexstar), stations in really teeny markets, stations on the wrong end of duopolies, and CW/MyNet affiliates. (And quite a few Fox affiliates, possibly because Fox doesn't have a national newscast despite the infrastructure to do so. In Seattle, KCPQ/13 only has news when the Big 3 stations don't - when the national morning shows are on, and at 10.)

If we lose the national news, we will lose something very important - unadulterated, non-screaming, reasoned, even - dare I say it - fair and balanced reporting on news that actually matters. What we need to do is something is something the networks can't do: change the culture of American youth to get them to care more about news in general (why do you think the all-geezer-viewer network news still leads the cable networks?). The Iraq War could be doing that, and a draft could be the best thing to happen to network news in a while.

But the youth will probably then turn to non-network sources for news. So you need to appeal to them. This was part of the reason CBS went after Katie Couric and gave her so much power. Bob might have been good for news junkies, but CBS probably feared that, to young people, he was BO-RING. Take cues from Jon Stewart, adopt a more informal format, anything, just so much that it's more exciting than a shouting match - which CAN be fairly exciting.

That said... has anyone in this discussion who's defending the sanctity of traditional network news actually SEEN the news lately? The old adage that there is only seven minutes of news a day may be accurate. Do the networks fill the remaining time with stories from abroad or around the nation that are important but that they otherwise wouldn't report? No. Katie is full of fluff pieces like the "freeSpeech" segment, others have long had manipulative tabloid-inspired segments (some, like NBC's "The Fleecing of America", may have caused conservatives to start screeching about a liberal media, although wasteful use of tax money is supposedly a conservative thing...), and each fights with each other for the big "get". As a society, I almost wonder if we have some eerie similarities to the Roman Empire near its fall... all we need is for the terrorists to get a little bolder...

(Oh shit, the House of Bush is coming after me now, isn't it? I don't really want the terrorists to attack us again!!! Islamic or Christian, Arab or American, hiding in caves or in Crawford!)

 

[bpatrick]

We're about the only major country where the
network newscasts air before prime time. I
wish it were possible for a U.S. network to
do something like The National on CBC at
10 PM, but who's going to sacrifice the
revenue? No one.

Perhaps when digital becomes the only
way to get television, the networks can
use a digital subchannel for a prime time
newscast that could run an hour or two,
perhaps embracing both the traditional
and the Jon Stewart-type approaches.

But to get young people to watch news
on a regular basis is almost like tilting
at windmills; it's got to be something big
like 9/11. I agree that young people
won't watch regularly until they
themselves decide it's cool to
be smart or they feel a personal stake in
what's going on (as we did with Vietnam
and civil rights).

While I think nothing is going to change
demographically, I also think that at this
point it's pointless to argue that the
network evening news should be put out
of its misery; try me again in a couple of
years, when digital is all we have.

 

[fred flintstone]

I also think that at this
point it's pointless to argue that the
network evening news should be put out
of its misery; try me again in a couple of
years, when digital is all we have.

Are you The Decider on this question? :