Watched it too. It was an amazing special all around. Nice to see recognizable faces like Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney, Ed Bradley, Morley Safer and others.
-
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
Jeff Glor to host the CBS Evening News
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
Watched it too. It was an amazing special all around. Nice to see recognizable faces like Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney, Ed Bradley, Morley Safer and others.
Some minor changes with Jeff Glor on the CBS Evening News...the graphics do look a bit more bold, and the use of red is more evident. The desk set is much smaller, and much more moving around the studio in standup locations, but other than those minor production elements everything else is the same. Theme, basic set, all remain the same. Glor seems comfortable. Probably a good move for CBS.
Last edited:
I agree...he's young and could be in that chair for a long time. Longer than most of his recent predecessors.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-capus-at-cbs-evening-news-1077346
Now Steve Capus is out at the CBS Evening news. Note this is a management change at CBS Evening News as the Jeff Glor era begins.
Now Steve Capus is out at the CBS Evening news. Note this is a management change at CBS Evening News as the Jeff Glor era begins.
I think replacing, albeit seasoned, network EP's with digital content folks is a mistake. These days having to walk the line between retaining a Boomer audience while transitioning to Millennials isn't done by just letting the digital group run the TV side. My experience is, the digital-editorial side just ends up trying to over-do the presentation on TV with too many graphical elements and flash, with less substance (if that's possible). Ultimately the audience you're trying to draw away from digital news sources remain getting their news from digital, but you end up driving away the audience that's looking for more traditional TV news.
Maybe...it's not like CBS has a lot to lose here. Not like they're #1. Also, its not like boomers are completely unable to adapt to new technologies or new presentations. And those who want a "more traditional TV news" have lots of options. Ultimately, a new anchor should be able to make whatever changes he wants. There are no obligations to keep the furniture arranged the same way the previous owner had it.
I am a Pre-Boomer (if there is such a thing) who has a habit of watching the evening network news while eating dinner. Recently I have been switching between the Big 3 a lot and comparing their stories and presentation.
I don't see a ton of difference in presentation. They all seem to overdo the video aspects of a story and they tend to present stories which do not make a dime's worth of difference to most viewers. For instance, last night both NBC and CBS had brief segments of a big traffic accident on a Midwest Interstate. Viewers outside the STL area could not have been less interested in such a story. My opinion is that it was presented merely because of its prurient interest value. Likewise the story of the sky diver who free fell onto a house roof in SoCal. There is such a lack of in-depth coverage of really important stories these days and concentration of "pop" news (the time NBC spent on the Neil Diamond retirement vs CBS mention of it). One was appropriate and the other was not.
The selection of stories seems to be a big difference. I find that CBS leads the pack here with stories that are of interest or effect to a greater number of nationwide viewers than the other two. NBC gets an 'F' in this category.
I don't see a ton of difference in presentation. They all seem to overdo the video aspects of a story and they tend to present stories which do not make a dime's worth of difference to most viewers. For instance, last night both NBC and CBS had brief segments of a big traffic accident on a Midwest Interstate. Viewers outside the STL area could not have been less interested in such a story. My opinion is that it was presented merely because of its prurient interest value. Likewise the story of the sky diver who free fell onto a house roof in SoCal. There is such a lack of in-depth coverage of really important stories these days and concentration of "pop" news (the time NBC spent on the Neil Diamond retirement vs CBS mention of it). One was appropriate and the other was not.
The selection of stories seems to be a big difference. I find that CBS leads the pack here with stories that are of interest or effect to a greater number of nationwide viewers than the other two. NBC gets an 'F' in this category.
@ Landtuna: I rarely watch NBC, but I would have figured ABC's "World News Tonight" would lead all networks for the "vapid news shot on a camera phone" award. What's your take on their newscast?
If I'm home at that hour, I will usually select "Nightly Business Report" on PBS, which I find to be a solid program.
If I'm home at that hour, I will usually select "Nightly Business Report" on PBS, which I find to be a solid program.
Last edited:
ABC is my second choice but only by the slimmest of margins. They seem to favor the "excitement" genre with big noise at the opening and a delivery done in some sort of breathless style.
Just yesterday I blasted NBC for its terrible choice of evening news stories and today we learn their top news person can be easily duped by the slime balls in North Korea.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nbc-host-duped-north-korea-reporting-staged-ski-resort-100310902.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nbc-host-duped-north-korea-reporting-staged-ski-resort-100310902.html
Sort of begs the question: Who do you believe? The reporter's job is only to report what he sees. Not determine if its the truth. He reports, you decide. We see that every day at the White House. If you decide he's been duped, then that's what you believe. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't report what he sees, or present it to the public.
I guess it's easier to spell than Cronkite.
Are you really serious? My old journalism instructor is rolling over in his grave. A reporter's job is to observe, verify and report. As stated in the article, several others in the group were not fooled, just the million dollar news reader.
Who are the "several others in the group?" Richard Grenell wasn't there. He was observing the pictures just like everyone else. The pictures tell the story. Read Holt's tweet. "We've been treated with respect here." That's verifiable. He was. Sure, NBC is saying nice things while they're on enemy soil. That happens a lot when reporters go to enemy countries. We'll see what he says after he's safe and can speak freely.
The article doesn't say where Grenell was but apparently he was able to discern the fakery from afar - unlike Holt.
And you are taking this discussion off course. My point was that NBC's leading news reporter isn't apparently able to detect obvious deception. It had nothing to do with his remark about treatment or safety. It has everything to do with selection of evening news stories of which I was critical.
This story was nothing more than a commercial for NBC to sell the upcoming Olympics which will air on NBC. It had no newsworthy content.
We don't know that for sure. We don't know the circumstances. Is NBC trying to build up interest in the Olympics? Sure. No question. They're also using that to get them access where other reporters aren't allowed. That's why I'm asked who are the "others in the group?" No other reporters got that access. Would it be better for them to tell the truth? Sure. Would they have been censored by the North Korean government? Maybe. That's what happens when you go to totalitarian countries. It's happened before in Iraq and Afghanistan. NOT to report the story would be censoring it, and not allowing outsiders to even see what Holt saw. So maybe he reported it the way the government wanted. And we're free to make observations about his reporting. That's part of the story. Did you see ANY reporting from North Korea on the other channels? Probably not. Would you rather see something or nothing? That's up to you.
My old journalism instructor must have known your old journalism instructor! That is 100 percent the truth.
An on-the-scene reporter does not verify. They report what they see with their own eyes and what other witnesses or authorities have to say about the event. Verification is simply part of "being there".
Investigative reporters take rumor, hearsay and suspicions and try to get second source verification. That's a different kind of journalism from spot news coverage.
- Status