> > The original network anchors--Douglas Edwards, John
> Cameron
> > Swayze,
> > and John Daly--were little more than news readers; only
> Daly
> > had
> > significant reporting experience (of course, given the
> > technology
> > of the late '40s/early '50s, visuals were largely film
> taken
> > days
> > earlier). In fact, Edwards' newscast, for most of its
> run,
> > was
> > titled "Douglas Edwards With The News," and Swayze's had
> the
> > sponsor's
> > name in the title: "Camel News Caravan." And don't forget
>
> > that
> > all three moonlighted as game-show hosts (Daly on What's
> My
> > Line?
> > from 1950-67, Edwards on Masquerade Party in 1953, Swayze
> on
> > Who
> > Said That? from 1948-54).
> >
> > The only difference between the '50s and now is that news
> > was
> > considered a throwaway back then; television (and the
> > public)
> > supposedly takes news more seriously now...and it's going
> to
> > be
> > very difficult for the public to accept Katie as a serious
>
> > journalist,
> > no matter what her prior credentials. As for myself, I'll
>
> > stick with
> > Brian Williams.
> >
> Did you like Tom Brokaw? He also spent time on the Today
> show, while I was in high school. He then went to the NBC
> Nightly News -- nobody accused him of not being qualified
> because he was on Today. He certainly did his share of
> "fluffy" interviews, but nobody then said he was unqualified
> to be the Evening anchor.
>
> If you don't care for Katie, then say so. But don't hide
> behind the talk-show argument. It simply rings hollow --
> unless you're willing to state that Tom also should never
> have been the evening anchor.
>
Yes, I liked--and watched--Tom Brokaw, but keep in mind that he
had already established himself as a serious journalist as NBC's
White House correspondent during Watergate. Likewise, no one
seems to have a problem with Charlie Gibson when he anchors
"World News Tonight"--he is perceived as a hard-news-related
broadcaster.
Down in the next post, Joseph Gallant points out that Hugh Downs
was host of the "Today" show and the game show "Concentration,"
simultaneously from 1962-69. But "Today" did not have the same
news image (more of an infotainment show) in Downs' day. It
wasn't until he began doing "20/20" in 1978 that anyone--thanks
to the ABC PR department--really perceived him as a serious journalist.
I say "anyone"--not "everyone."
My point in bringing up the anchors of the '50s is that we seem to
be coming full circle, back to personalities. I was trying to show
that television news wasn't taken as seriously then; most people got
their news from newspapers, not television. But nowadays it's the
other way around; the newspaper may be an endangered species (television,
too, if the Internet becomes the prime source of news). Viewers,
especially those of us over 50, are looking for people we can trust
as journalists (and don't give me the "advertisers don't care for
people over 50" argument because it would take a miracle to get a
large audience of under-50s for the evening news on any broadcast
network, regardless of anchor, and Katie herself turns 50 next year).
Being a former morning-show host has nothing to do with the public's
acceptance. Brokaw did NBC Nightly News for more than 20 years, and
Gibson should have been Peter Jennings' replacement. But do you
remember Barbara Walters' co-anchoring with Harry Reasoner on ABC
(1976-78)? She was never taken seriously as a hard-news anchor.
And yes, I will admit it: I don't care for Katie, don't think she
has credibility re hard news, and will not be watching when she
moves to CBS.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by bpatrick on 04/07/06 12:43 PM.</FONT></P>