• 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

Katie Couric & Bob Schieffer Now Virtual Co-Anchors @ CBS Evening News

It sure does seem that way recently. With President Ford's funeral, the President's recent address, and the State of the Union address, Bob has been getting alot of air time.
 
If only CBS had hired Roger Mudd all those years ago...
 
It would suit me just fine to see Bob and Katie as
co-anchors for real; Bob was a Godsend to the
troubled CBS Evening News in the first place.

Until then, I'm sticking with Charlie.
 
Garrett said:
I don't understand, I read the article, but I don't see how a quote from Bob Shieffer translates into him being "like a co-anchor."

Can you explain what you mean please?
Click to expand...

From the article:

Although Katie Couric is the presiding anchor on CBS, she increasingly relies on the expertise of Schieffer when covering big political events. They are now virtual co-anchors. While Couric read from prepared historical information about past State of the Union addresses, Schieffer did the up-to-date political analysis. In fact, he seemed to get even more screen time than Couric in the minutes leading up to the speech.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting.
I chose to watch ABC News's coverage. NBC copped out with a repeat of "The Office," ABC was the only one that stayed with coverage the entire two hours. I always did like Schiefer better, but CBS is sending a bad messge to Couric by doing this. CBS seems to be unable to show support for their Anchors.
 
The situation at CBS TV News is just tragic. There is so much talent available, for so much less.
John Roberts, Bill Kurtis, Charlie Osgood, Bob Arnott, Susan Spencer, Diane Sawyer, the list goes on and on, and I'll bet any one of them would do a better job for a fraction of the paycheck. How many bureaus could you staff for 16 million? Do people watch for the anchor, or in spite of her?
g
 
Yes, even though CBS is putting a happy face on the current Couric situation, there are major problems. Shieffer pulled CBS back up after Rather left. The ratings and the reviews were, for the most part, positive. So, of course, CBS blows it up. Typical network TV behavior. My prediction: Couric will not be anchoring the CBS news solo one year from today...(1/24/08).
 
searadiofreak said:
The ratings and the reviews were, for the most part, positive. So, of course, CBS blows it up. Typical network TV behavior...
Click to expand...

Actually when you consider their radio transactions, that's typical CBS behavior. :eek:
 
I so wish they had stuck with Bob Schieffer. I was watching CBS Evening news for the first time in ages when he was on. And he was such a pro and gentleman when they brough in Katie. And not to defend her but she's had a target on her back since she took the anchor job and they probably pursued her, not the other way around so I don't blame her for going for it...but it's clearly not her "thing."
TV has started shooting itself in the foot much the way radio has been doing for years and years.
 
My dad watches CBS, so I asked him for his opinion on
bringing Schieffer in. He says he thinks Schieffer is
trying to prop up Katie, that she does not have the
knowledge (historical or otherwise) to analyze and
place something like the State of the Union address
in some kind of context. In fact, he said that Schieffer
looked miffed at one point when Katie was trying to
show how much she knew (very little, apparently).

He, too, believes the answer is to make them co-anchors,
although he'd be the first to say that either John Roberts
should have had the job in the first place or that Schieffer
should have been kept on, if only to help ease Katie into
the job. (I apologize for the sexism in using his last name
but her first name, but I will be a long time recognizing
Katie Couric as a serious journalist.) For now, I think
Murphy's Law is in effect where she's concerned.
 
CBS Promised something new and exciting after Rather departed.

What changed? The theme music (barely), the set (barely), and the medical correspondent?

CBS News has nothing to bring viewers to their network. The 50-year-old woman who was supposed to bring star power has the same number of viewers as 69-year-old Schieffer.

I don't think John Roberts was the answer for CBS; however, Jim Axlerod isn't the same caliber of reporter.

When CBS covered the Ford Funeral, I tried hard to watch it. But Katie and Bob and their historian were tripping over each other. They had too many correspondents (at least three along the procession route).

When Merideth was on The View, I respected her a lot more than I do on Today. If she were to take over World News, she would have the same issues as Katie because Today is a very visible role - and a blemish on a resume.
 
I know he just signed a new contract to continue at CNN, but Anderson Cooper is the next logical CBS choice. (Would love to see the fine print in that contract, what with the CBS- Warner relationship.)
 
searadiofreak said:
Yes, even though CBS is putting a happy face on the current Couric situation, there are major problems. Shieffer pulled CBS back up after Rather left. The ratings and the reviews were, for the most part, positive. So, of course, CBS blows it up. Typical network TV behavior. My prediction: Couric will not be anchoring the CBS news solo one year from today...(1/24/08).
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree with your post.

I agree that CBS made a mistake in hiring Couric. Understand please that the network wasn't interested in a solid professional news anchor. Instead they wanted a "name" sitting in the big chair. One would think that CBS and other networks would have learned over the years that certain people (Connie Chung Ashleigh Banfield) just do not have audience appeal.

As for your belief that Couric will be gone by next year; it isn't going to happen. Executives at Black Rock are not about to walk around at the next NAB or affiliates conventions with egg on their faces.

Instead Couric and the CBS news will hire a bunch of consultants to come in and restructure the ‘CBS Evening News.’ That could mean a brand new set ( I'm always amazed why consultants think a new set design is going to improve the quality of the product?) and perhaps copying what has made NBC and ABC news more viable newscasts.

My prediction is that next year Charlie Gibson and ABC news will be the number #1 network newscast followed close behind by Brian Williams at NBC and CBS will remain a distant third.
 
Katie Couric is living proof that what works in one format doesn't necessarily work in another. What I am saying is while she did a reasonable job with the Today Show, her performance as a news anchor at CBS is less than stellar. Is she worth the millions CBS is paying her? I personally don't think so. The network could have kept Bob Schieffer and shelled out far less money. But that is a decision the network brass will have to live with. And I also don't believe that Couric will be deep-sixed by next year.
 
Hasn't Bob Schieffer publicly said that he DIDN'T WANT to be the Evening News anchor permanently?

He has home, family, strong contacts from his long tenure in DC, and is a strength for CBS in that regard.

Perhaps knowing that there'd be "light at the end of the tunnel" as an interim CBS E. N. anchor enabled him to make the committment to commuting from DC to NY for a time.

Wonder what would happen if Walter Cronkite could be induced into doing more for the Evening News... if--at age 91--he's able and willing to contribute more than his voice introducing Couric.

Personally, I grew up with the CBS News of the 60's (KCBS, San Francisco on radio and CBS-TV on KPIX, later KFBK, Sacramento and KXTV) and things haven't been the same since the Kalb brothers, Daniel Schorr, and other solid reporters began trickling away.

Maybe television needs to be looking for solid wire service reporters that can be trained and developed into broadcasters... which is what served Cronkite well in his years at CBS... and I suspect influenced how he guided the Evening News. He retired on March 6, 1981 because of CBS's mandatory age 65 retirement policy.

Had Dan Rather NOT gotten caught up in the bad info he chose to air about fellow Texan GWB, he might still be sitting there.

Ted.
 
TedL said:
Hasn't Bob Schieffer publicly said that he DIDN'T WANT to be the Evening News anchor permanently?

He has home, family, strong contacts from his long tenure in DC, and is a strength for CBS in that regard.

Perhaps knowing that there'd be "light at the end of the tunnel" as an interim CBS E. N. anchor enabled him to make the committment to commuting from DC to NY for a time.

Wonder what would happen if Walter Cronkite could be induced into doing more for the Evening News... if--at age 91--he's able and willing to contribute more than his voice introducing Couric.

Personally, I grew up with the CBS News of the 60's (KCBS, San Francisco on radio and CBS-TV on KPIX, later KFBK, Sacramento and KXTV) and things haven't been the same since the Kalb brothers, Daniel Schorr, and other solid reporters began trickling away.

Maybe television needs to be looking for solid wire service reporters that can be trained and developed into broadcasters... which is what served Cronkite well in his years at CBS... and I suspect influenced how he guided the Evening News. He retired on March 6, 1981 because of CBS's mandatory age 65 retirement policy.

Had Dan Rather NOT gotten caught up in the bad info he chose to air about fellow Texan GWB, he might still be sitting there.

Ted.
Click to expand...


There will never be another Walter Cronkite. He's from a different era where news people actually had experience either from the wire service or newspapers. They knew how to write news, and later how to deliver it on television. Today it's not what you write, it's how good looking you are that counts. Maybe not so much on the 3 networks, but check out cable TV news sometime.

The closest person that comes close to the Cronkite era currently anchoring network news is Charlie Gibson. ABC made a great decision to put Gibson in the anchor chair. That duel anchor idea failed numerous times before and I still can't figure out why ABC wanted to try it again with Elizabeth Vargas and the gentleman who was injured in Iraq.

As for Katie Couric, she's getting her millions so what does she care? Schieffer, by the way, is also a professional from the Cronkite era. But he's an older white male and the network, along with local stations, are more interested in the Barbie and Ken dolls.

Some consultants believe that a younger anchor will attract younger viewers. That isn't working because most of the commericals I see on the evening news is targeted for the 50+ age group.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom